Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Inner City Funding (Brent)

Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the total of inner city funding for the London borough of Brent.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Tony Newton): The Government are making a substantial contribution under their inner-city programmes to the London borough of Brent. In 1987–88, more than £16 million was made available, including more than £10 million for training and employment programmes and more than £6 million to help regenerate the local economy and improve the environment.

Mr. Livingstone: Does the Minister accept that those funds nowhere near compensate Brent's loss of rate support grant which is now about 40 per cent.? Since we in this House trade statistics all the time, will the Minister accept an invitation to come to the advice surgery which I hold each week—[Interruption.] I am sorry that hon. Members laugh because last night at my surgery I saw 30 people, all of whom are suffering massive problems caused by the Government's cuts in housing programmes and in DHSS funding. Will the Minister come and see the human reality into which statistics are translated at my surgery?

Mr. Newton: I have to admit, I hope with due modesty, that I am more inclined to think that the London borough of Brent needs advice more than the Government need it. I am confirmed in that view by the fact that the hon. Gentleman has said that of all the Labour councils he knew, none was as incompently and insensitively managed as Brent. He might like to draw the attention of Brent council to the fact that it has not submitted audited grant claims under the urban programme since 1981–82, and that some £6 million of grant that it could have received under that programme remains unclaimed.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend consider the amount of taxpayers' money that has gone into an area of the south-east which currently has so many vacancies and so much private industry capital investment? Surely that is a misuse of taxpayers' money when there are so many regions which have real unemployment problems and could do with that money. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that money would be better directed to areas other than Brent?

Mr. Newton: It is certainly the case that other areas of the country have very substantial needs—including the area that I visited yesterday, where the Government invest very large sums of money. However, we should not overlook the fact that there are serious problems in some pockets of the south.

Airbus Project

Mr. Jack: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last had discussions with Britain's partners in the Airbus project.

Mr. Mans: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further meetings he has had with representatives of Airbus Industrie.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I met the aerospace Ministers of France, the Federal Republic of Germany and Spain in Toulouse on 15 December 1988. Representatives of Airbus Industrie and the industrial partners of that consortium were also present.

Mr. Jack: In the course of those discussions, did my hon. Friend consider the prospects for Airbus Industrie, its organisation and finance up to the year 2000? Did he discuss prospects for orders from Braniff Airways? His answer will be of immense interest to aerospace workers in the north-west of England.

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend would be surprised if we had not discussed the prospects for Airbus Industrie. I am particularly pleased with the Braniff order, which takes up the original Pan Am order of 50 A320s, with an option on a further 50. That is exceptionally good news because they will use the V2500 international aero-engine thereby creating a great deal of work for many people in Barnoldswick in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, together with the work that has been done in our respective constituencies.

Mr. Mans: I thank my hon. Friend for his replies. Will he comment further upon the financial reorganisation of Airbus? Important parts of the A320 are made in Lancashire, close to my constituency, and there is clear concern about how aircraft costings are worked out within the Airbus organisation.

Mr. Atkins: We have devoted considerable time at ministerial and consortium member level to ensure the future of Airbus Industrie in the run-up to the turn of the century to provide an excellent aeroplane at the right price. We hope that it will continue to compete properly with Boeing throughout the world. Like myself, my hon. Friend has many constituents who are making parts of the A320. It is important to them that the aircraft continues to be a success, so the reorganisation of Airbus Industrie is extremely important. We shall keep our attention on it for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Cryer: Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient investment is being provided by the Government to firms such as Rolls-Royce to provide a range of engines that will compete with the whole range of production by, for example, GEC and Pratt and Whitney? Is it not disturbing


that, while we are prepared to invest £7 billion in the European fighter aircraft, it seems to be at the expense of the neglect of the civil aircraft industry? Is it not important to develop the range of engines and the Airbus range of planes to match Boeing, particularly when British Airways seems to be handing over the whole of its fleet to Boeing sales managers? Should not the Government try to persuade British Airways to have at least part of its fleet manufactured by Airbus?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman raises many questions, as is his wont. The majority of British Airways airliners use Rolls-Royce engines. That is of benefit to Rolls-Royce employees throughout the country. In addition, Boeing aircraft have substantial British subcontract work—not least Shorts, for example, which does an enormous amount. All in all, there is a great commitment by Boeings to the British aerospace industry, and vice versa. Long may that be so.

Mr. Colvin: What decisions did the meeting to which my hon. Friend referred make about the recommendations of the independent committee that was set up to discuss the future of Airbus Industrie? The so-called committee of wise men recommended, first, a new streamlined supervisory board; secondly, a new executive board; and, thirdly, the appointment of a managing director and finance director. Those people will make Airbus Industrie more accountable to the people whom we represent—the taxpayers—and make it easier for Airbus Industrie to agree terms with possible American partners on the next generation of long-haul aircraft.

Mr. Atkins: As the chairman of the Conservative Back Bench Committee on these matters, my hon. Friend speaks with great authority. He recently went to Toulouse to explore further developments. As I said earlier, we are working extremely hard to ensure that Airbus Industrie is reorganised so that there is a finance director. The first decision that we took last December was to appoint Dr. Friderichs as chairman of the supervisory board. We are pleased with him. He is a German gentleman with considerable expertise and experience. We have asked him to report to us as soon as he possibly can on how the rest of the board should be structured, with particular reference to a British finance director.

Retirements

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when it is now expected that (a) Sir Brian Hayes and (b) Mr. Neville Ledsome will retire.

Mr. Newton: Sir Brian Hayes is expected to retire in September this year, and Mr. Neville Ledsome in November this year.

Mr. Dalyell: Could it be delicately suggested to them that, before retirement, they might like to follow the example of John Mogg and Colette Bowe, and put their versions of what happened in relation to Westland in January 1986 into a bank vault?

Mr. Newton: The matter has been fairly fully raised by the hon. Gentleman in the House over a very long period. I have nothing to add to the full accounts that the Prime Minister has given to the House.

Task Forces (East Midlands)

Mr. Boswell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the progress of the inner-city task forces in the east midlands.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): The inner-city task forces are central to the Government's action for cities programme. Their objectives are to secure more jobs for local people, to improve their employability, to encourage and facilitate local enterprise and to support environmental initiatives, which also contribute to these objectives. The Nottingham and Highfields (Leicester) task forces have both made sound progress towards achieving those aims. To date, they have committed £2·8 million to more than 100 projects which, among other things, are expected to create around 730 jobs and 2,230 training places for local people. A number of projects have also attracted additional support from the private sector and from other Government programmes.

Mr. Boswell: Bearing in mind that I too come from the east midlands, but represent a more rural constituency, will my hon. Friend accept that the news is equally welcome to us as it is to the inner cities? In view of the fact that 1989 is British Food and Farming Year and that good work is being done by the Country Trust, the Association of Agriculture and other organisations will my hon. Friend bear in mind the countryside's scope as an educational and social resource which can work alongside his project?

Mr. Forth: I praise my hon. Friend for his ingenuity in managing to bring his praiseworthy words about the countryside into a question about the inner-city task forces. In view of the type of constituency that he represents, I am glad that he appreciates the good work that has been done, and continues to be done, by the inner-city task forces. I am sure that everyone will appreciate that the benefits that come directly to people in the inner cities are a contribution to the improved well-being of society as a whole.

Mr. Vaz: In view of the Minister's cheerful explanation about the Highfields task force—which I dispute—does he think that it is appropriate at this stage to enable local authorities to play a more direct role in the operation of the inner-city task forces? Does he agree that now is the time to place the task forces under the direct control of local authorities? He will recall that when the matter has been raised on previous occasions, the Minister has said that he will come before the House with proposals to create outer estate task forces. Has progress been made on that?

Mr. Forth: I think that I can understand why the hon. Gentleman in particular has raised the question in that way. The sad truth is that whereas task forces have been able to work well with local authorities—including Labour-controlled local authorities—in virtually every task force area, Leicester, his own local authority, has refused to co-operate with the task force and has made its work more difficult. It has obstructed its work and has, therefore, contributed to making it less effective than those in other cities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's contribution will be to go back to his local authority and


urge it to take a more constructive approach, so that his constituents can benefit as much as those in other city areas.

Mr. Devlin: Does the Minister accept that similar problems have been experienced by Government projects in other parts of the country? In Middlesbrough, for example, there are problems with the Teesside development corporation, which is being obstructed in every way by Middlesbrough council, which has now said that it has not had consultation with the Teesside development corporation, having not asked for any. It has the support of the local Labour Member in this matter.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has raised an important point and I am sure that it has not been lost on the local people. When they see what can be done when local authorities co-operate with organisations such as the task forces in bringing benefits to the local people, they will judge for themselves whether it is correct for the local authority to be helpful or unhelpful. There are many examples of areas where local authorities and the task forces work well together to the benefit of the people in the inner cities. As a result of what my hon. Friend has said and the question put by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), the point will be noted by the local electorate in local elections.

Mr. Alton: Although I confirm what the Minister said about the successful role that the task forces can play in the regeneration of an economy, does he accept that there is something in the comments of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) about the lack of accountability of some task forces? Does the Minister recognise that some people perceive the task force as a gauleiter in carpet slippers? The task forces should be more accountable to the local community and should contain a greater local element when they are established.

Mr. Forth: Of course, I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is only fair to point out that great progress has been made over many decades, for example, by the use of such devices as new town development corporations, one of which was very successful in my own constituency, and which, by the very fact that they are not elected, can make progress in a way in which elected authorities cannot. The key is to get co-operation between the elected representatives in local government and the task forces for as long as they are operating in particular areas. At best, that should give us a balance between the effectiveness of the task force and the accountability of the local authority.

Restrictive Trade Practices

Mr. French: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his policy on restrictive trade practices.

Mr. Newton: The Government are planning fundamental reform of restrictive trade practices legislation. Proposals were outlined in my Department's Green Paper published in March 1988 and have received widespread support. We intend to move to a system which is more closely aligned to European Community law and under which agreements with anti-competitive effects would be prohibited.

Mr. French: When reaching his decision on the action to take, will my right hon. Friend consider extending the powers of the Office of Fair Trading so that it may consider restrictive practices as they affect the location of pharmacies and the competitive pricing of pharmaceutical products?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know—I know this from former ministerial responsibilities—that the provisions governing the location of pharmacies, including the work of the rural dispensing committee, operate under other legislation. However, I shall certainly draw what my hon. Friend has said to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the Minister consider restrictive practices in relation to the professions, especially the legal profession and accountancy?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who is currently considering some of those issues.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is considerable interest in the decision reached yesterday by the High Court concerning the Lonrho and Harrods affair—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That matter is sub judice.

Sir Peter Emery: I do not think that what I am about to say is sub judice, Mr. Speaker. I was going to ask whether we can have an assurance that the Minister's decision will be made public as soon as possible?

Mr. Newton: You, Mr. Speaker, made the point that I must make. Although I am aware that there is considerable interest in that matter, I am also aware that my right hon. and noble Friend lodged an appeal yesterday against the court decisions which are being considered today by the Court of Appeal. My hon. Friend will understand that in those circumstances there is nothing that I can say.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: When the Minister settles down to decide whether he has a policy on restrictive trade practices, will he do something about the estate agents who have grown so fat on the Government's housing bubble, or is he just waiting for his fat friend the Chancellor to solve the problem for him by killing the housing market altogether with the insane escalation of interest rates?

Mr. Newton: The position on estate agents is that my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Consumer Affairs will shortly complete what have been extensive discussions with trade bodies. He will then announce our conclusions which will, of course, take account of the views expressed by the Director-General of Fair Trading in his recently published review of the Estate Agents Act 1979. I am sure that my hon. Friend, who is well known for considering all views, will take account of those expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

Trade (Tunisia)

Mr. Butler: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on current trading relations with Tunisia.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): United Kingdom-Tunisian trade relations are good. Provisional trade figures for January-November 1988 show United Kingdom exports of just under £29 million and imports of £34 million.

Mr. Butler: Is my hon. Friend aware that that friendly country, which is liberalising its economy and privatising, has traditionally turned its face towards France and the Francophone world but now wishes to expand its horizons, and presents considerable opportunities to English exporters should they take the chance?

Mr. Clark: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point. I hope to visit Tunisia in March with a high-level CBI mission to encourage further development of trade between our two countries. Last March I opened the "Tunis Week" exhibition, which was well attended and aroused a great deal of interest, and I hope to follow up in my visit.

Mr. Ron Brown: As Tunisia—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brown: As Tunisia has virtually a common market with Libya, would it not make sense to at least have a dialogue with Colonel Gadaffi's Government about the possibility of better relations between Britain and Libya?

Mr. Clark: In my conversations with distinguished members of the Tunisian Government and Corps Diplomatique, I have found that they express substantial reservations about their relationship with Colonel Gadaffi. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "common market", but certainly Tunisia does not suffer from any of the restraints on our trade which we presently and properly impose on trade with Libya.

Mr. Hanley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the political situation in Tunisia with President Ben Ali is more stable than for many years? Following on the excellent aid provision that has been given to the Maghreb region by the United Kingdom, does my hon. Friend agree that we should take advantage of the good will which is being established between Tunisia and Britain?

Mr. Clark: Yes, indeed. The political regime has entirely altered and one of the objectives of the Tunisian Government and business leaders presently is to privatise the public sector of its economy. To that end a mission will be visiting the United Kingdom. It will also be visiting Russia. I hope that then we shall be able to tell it how to carry that out profitably and efficiently.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were the levels of investment and profitability in manufacturing industry (a) in the past year, (b) five years ago, (c) 10 years ago, and (d) 15 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Atkins: The figures on profitability are as follows: In 1972 the net rate of return was 8·1 per cent.; in 1977–5·7 per cent.; in 1982–4 per cent.; in 1987, the latest year for which figures are available, it was 9·2 per cent.
Investment in 1972 was £8·8 billion; in 1977, £9·8 billion; in 1982, £7·6 billion; and in 1987, £10·1 billion.

Mr. Greenway: In each case are not those excellent figures and do they not give the lie to the Labour party's constant assertion that there is under-investment in manufacturing industry with the consequent loss of jobs? Is it not time for us to put that back down the throats of the Labour party? Will my hon. Friend say what the future prospects are for profitability and investment in British industry? Will he include in that answer the level of investment by the Japanese and what safeguards there are for our future investment levels to be maintained alongside this?

Mr. Atkins: There is every sign that the trends to which I have referred, which so eloquently speak of the success of the Government's economic policy, will continue. The Department of Trade and Industry does a regular survey of investment intentions. The most recent one in December showed that the figure for 1988 would be 12 per cent—a record level of investment—11 per cent. in 1989 and yet further increases in 1990. That has been confirmed by the CBI, which has done a similar investigation. Investment intentions remain extremely buoyant.
I cannot give my hon. Friend details of Japanese investment, although I shall endeavour to give him that information. However, Japan invests more in this country than in any other country, other than the United States.

Mr. Kennedy: Does the Minister agree that obviously the level of investment and profitability in our manufacturing industry is heavily influenced by and dependent upon its ability to sell abroad? In that context, does he agree that there are rather worrying signs from those about to occupy senior positions within the new Bush Administration, as well as from the rather protectionist sentiments which are developing on Capitol hill at the moment that the Americans are wrongly perceiving 1992 and the single European market as some kind of "fortress Europe" mentality on the part of this country and our European partners? Will the Minister say what efforts the Government are making to disabuse the Americans of that misguided notion and to preserve and strengthen our manufacturing export market as a result?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that concern. I am cautious about predicting what a new Administration yet to be inaugurated will do, but my noble Friend the Secretary of State and I, let alone Ministers in other Departments, have spent a lot of time in the United States making sure that it realises that the concept of a fortress Europe is not one that we see as the future. The United States has a great interest in ensuring that its substantial and welcome investment in Britain will benefit it here just as much as it will in its own country.

Mr. Batiste: Will my hon. Friend confirm that employees of profitable companies should rightly expect to share in the increase of profits of those companies, but that their improved prospects today can be maintained only if increased earnings come out of improved productivity and lower unit labour costs?

Mr. Atkins: Yes, Sir.

Mrs. Mahon: May I draw the Minister's attention to a press release, issued earlier this week by the textile, hosiery and clothing industries, which talks about the bad agreement that we have just made with China? What does the Minister have to say to people in my constituency


whose jobs are threatened—as it says in the press release—by that agreement? I should add that I do not think that any of those people are members of the Labour party.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Lady has raised a point which, as she knows, is as much a matter for the Commission as for Britain. I shall look into the detail of the matter and write to her. I hope that I shall be able to reassure her.

Mr. Roger King: Is my hon. Friend aware that businesses need an open world market in order to remain profitable and to increase their profitability? Will he join me in expressing anxiety about the United States' attitude towards the Range Rover product manufactured in Britain on which penal import duties are due to be levied as a result of it being restructured in the United States' market place? That will have a substantial effect on the work people in the west midlands.

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which is troubling us at the moment. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade has the matter in hand and, in his own inimitable fashion, will take what action he believes to be necessary to ensure that that extremely popular and first-rate vehicle continues to sell in large numbers in the United States.

Dr. Bray: May I suggest that the Under-Secretary checks his figures? Is he aware that by their neglect and manipulation of statistics about which the Government do not care, they have lost credibility on those about which they do care and which have substantial effects in the market? Is he aware that of some £9 billion increase in profits since 1979, only some £400 million has gone into increased investment in manufacturing industry, and that the supply side response of manufacturing industry to improve its competitiveness is completely inadequate to remedy the enormous gap in the current balance of payments? May I suggest that the Department of Trade and Industry thinks again?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman has confused himself with his figures, so he would not expect me to follow him down that winding path. The figures that I have given are absolutely right and we are proud of the success that they represent.

Mr. Redwood: As the most recent investment figures include substantial sums on car and video assembly capacity in Britain and as there are now moves to tax such products or to block their export to other member countries in the EC, can my hon. Friend assure me that the Government will try to roll back those protectionist moves in order to encourage more inward investment in the United Kingdom in such assembly activity?

Mr. Atkins: We spend a lot of time encouraging inward investment in Britain, although it is such a popular place to come to that many countries want to invest here anyway. My hon. Friend the Minister of Trade has heard my hon. Friend's comments and I am sure that he will enjoy pursuing this, as he does every other issue.

Semi-conductors

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take action to guarantee the independence and security of the British semi-conductor manufacture industry.

Mr. Forth: The ownership of companies in the semi-conductor industry is primarily a matter for the boards and shareholders of those companies.

Mr. Flynn: Will the Government take action to ensure that Inmos remains British, either independently or as part of a larger British group? Does the Minister agree that the future of Inmos looks rosy in the short term under any circumstances because of the great strength of its products and its recent brilliant success? Does he further agree that if it is part of a state-owned company, SGS-Thomson, there are grave fears that future decisions on investment will be taken on national rather than commercial grounds? Will he guarantee that the British Government's involvement and investment in, and promotion of, Inmos will be at least as strong as such action by the French, Italian and American Governments in respect of their semi-conductor industries?

Mr. Forth: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has joined us in acknowledging that under state ownership a company's future is uncertain and in saying that he would prefer the company to remain in private ownership. I welcome his new view, which very much reflects those that we have adopted.
As the hon. Gentleman well knows—my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs wrote to him recently—the matter is under consideration by the Director General of Fair Trading. Until he determines his views it would be improper for us to take a view.

Mr. Oppenheim: Is it not true that the British and European semi-conductor industries already get a great deal of help in the form of high tariffs, substantial Government subsidies and now, potentially, European anti-dumping duties? Do not these protectionist instruments only compound the inefficiencies of the British and European industries and disadvantage the industrial consumers of semi-conductors, making it far less likely that the assemblers of electronic products can sell them on the world market?

Mr. Forth: Yes. My hon. Friend, who has considerable and respected knowledge of these matters, has put his finger on the key, which is that everyone will prosper in a freely trading global market in which everyone benefits from the best products available in it. To look at the issue in a narrow, nationalist or protectionist way does no service to the wealth-creating sector.

Mr. John Garrett: Does the Minister agree that the Government are likely to allow the extinction of the domestically owned semi-conductor industry, with the likelihood of the control of Inmos moving abroad, together with 600 graduates, representing the largest pool of talent in this area in the world? A similar threat hangs over Plessey. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we cannot maintain our place in the world market for information technology without a base of domestically owned semi-conductor manufacturing? Is this not another example of the vacuum where the Government's national information technology strategy should be?

Mr. Forth: The brief answer to the question is no. I can only reiterate at this stage that we cannot prejudge the


matters that may be before the Director General of Fair Trading, or which may come before my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State.
In principle, we believe that a free flow of capital, information and goods across national boundaries is to the benefit of consumers and producers alike, and we shall continue to encourage such moves.

Confederation of British Industry

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the Confederation of British Industry; and what was discussed.

Mr. Newton: I last met the CBI on 24 November when I spoke at its conference "Business Opportunities in Urban Regeneration".

Mr. Marshall: Did my right hon. Friend underline to the CBI that the greatest threat to the future of British industry comes from inflationary wage increases, not the level of interest rates?

Mr. Newton: I did not do so on the occasion to which I referred, but it is certainly true that a 1 per cent. increase in interest rates, even if sustained for a full year, puts up industry's costs by a good deal less than a 1 per cent. increase in wage settlements. The whole of industry needs to bear that in mind.

Mr. Corbett: Did the Secretary of State commend to the CBI the Church of England "Action in the City" programme and appeal in inner-city areas such as Birmingham heartlands? Will he encourage the CBI and its members to donate generously; will he also chip in a few quid himself?

Mr. Newton: As it happens, we have chipped in what the hon. Gentleman is pleased to call a few quid, to the extent of several hundred thousand pounds, to various Church initiatives in this area. I met the Bishop of Willesden and the Archbishop of Canterbury's team on this matter shortly before Christmas, with a view to building on the growing co-operation between the Church's aims and the Government's aims and policies in this area.

Mr. Burt: I am sure that when my right hon. Friend last met the CBI he discussed the problems of congestion, rising land values and general unpleasantness in the south-east, and encouraged any industry worth its salt and thinking of its future to move north—particularly to the north-west, and more specifically to the metropolitan borough of Bury.
When he next sees the CBI will he encourage member firms to move to the north-west? I am sure that he will welcome the record year that north-west industry enjoyed last year, not just with firms moving north but the resurgence of traditional manufacturing industry and the growth of small firms. Is it not time to move north?

Mr. Newton: The purpose of my speech to the CBI conference was to draw its attention to the opportunities that exist and to reinforce what is already happening. My most recent visits earlier this week were slightly further east than the places mentioned by my hon. Friend. I went to Sheffield on Monday and to Newcastle and Sunderland

yesterday. It is clear that business men are beginning not only to recognise but to seize the opportunities represented by the growth in industry in the north.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister discuss with the CBI the high level of imports of footwear from south-east Asia? They have risen from 54·5 million pairs in 1982 to 88 million pairs last year. Does he not understand that that is leading to the closure of footwear factories throughout the United Kingdom? The footwear industry is in a desperate state, and that includes Millers in my constituency. What is the Minister going to do about Reebok, the firm that puts the Union Jack on the side of its sports gear and sends it all over the world for example? Its products appear in shops throughout the United States. If one lifts the tongue of a shoe and looks inside one finds "Made in South Korea". Will he stop that practice?

Mr. Newton: I have not looked inside the tongue of any shoes recently. I undertake to consider the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As for the first part of his question, he knows that the European Commission is considering the matters he has raised.

Mr. Hind: When my right hon. Friend the Minister has discussions with representatives of the CBI, will he emphasise the importance to the construction section of the CBI of the need to build factories in the north of England? He will be aware that, because of the resurgence of northern industry, there is little vacant factory space available. If growth is to be sustained, the construction industry must be robust in its approach to that problem.

Mr. Newton: Yes. That is very much a part of the opportunities that exist for industry, and of the resurgence in the north. During my visit to Sunderland yesterday, I was pleased to be able to give some further details of English Estates plan to build 45,000 sq ft of factory space in Sunderland.

Mr. Gould: Has the Chancellor had the chance to discuss with the CBI the mess that his Department is making of competition policy? Such is now the confusion that no one knows which way the Secretary of State will jump from one case to another. Does the Minister recognise that in cases such as Cons Gold and GEC, reliance on narrow but somewhat specious competition grounds, highlights the absence of strategic thinking? In the case of the House of Fraser, the unexplained mystery of the Secretary of State's refusal to publish the DTI's report or refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission fully justifies the High Court judgment that the policy is "irrational and unreasonable". Will he clear up that mystery and tell us the basis of competition policy?

Mr. Newton: There is no mystery about the position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the report. It is being considered by the serious fraud office and my right hon. Friend's view, which I think is widely shared, is that it would be inappropriate to publish the report while that consideration continues. As to whether I have discussed with the CBI "the mess", as the hon. Gentleman puts it, of the Government's competition policy, the answer is no, because there is no mess.

Odometers

Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he plans to introduce new measures to combat the practice of altering the odometers of used cars.

Mr. Forth: I have no current plans to do so, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic is considering the feasibility of a scheme for the centralised recording of car mileages, as suggested by a working party under the chairmanship of the Director General of Fair Trading. I understand that a considered response to the suggestion will be made soon.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that the existing laws and deterrents are proving insufficient in protecting consumers from unscrupulous second-hand car dealers who fail to resist the temptation to turn their clocks back, and are giving their trade a bad name? Will he suggest to the Department of Transport the reintroduction of a modern form of the old-style log book containing a complete history of the ownership and mileage of every car as a legal document for the greater protection of consumers?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend's suggestion is interesting, and I am sure that he will have let our hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic know about it. I shall certainly draw it to his attention. Existing laws on consumer protection already deal with this matter. Car clocking, as it is commonly called, is a criminal offence under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and carries a maximum penalty on conviction of two years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine. In 1987, the last year for which figures are available, there were 556 successful prosecutions for misdescribed cars, mostly for the offence of clocking. The penalties are already in place. I think that a scheme similar to that which my hon. Friend has suggested is being looked at, and I am sure that he will do his best to promote it with my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister not agree that the moral authority with which the Government can attack the problem of fiddling the clocks of cars is greatly weakened by the fact that the Government have been doing the same thing with the unemployment statistics for the last nine years?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman tried hard and almost succeeded in making a point that amused his colleagues. Whether what he has said will help people who suffer from the serious problem of the clocking of cars is for others to decide. We take these matters seriously and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) made a serious and considered suggestion. I should like to see the Opposition doing the same.

Mr. Latham: Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister for Roads and Traffic to deal with this matter with tremendous urgency? Leicestershire council is very concerned about it. Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the people involved in this activity make Mr. Arthur Daley look as honest as St. Francis of Assisi?

Mr. Forth: The problem concerns people, because they are making one of the larger purchases that they are likely to make. If they fall prey to those involved in such practices it can cause great distress. The right thing to do

is to find the most effective way to deal with it. If we take a combination of what is already being looked at by my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic and the idea that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East suggested we are likely to find a solution.

Boeing AWACS (Offset Arrangements)

Mr. Hanley: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps his Department has taken to encourage the British civil aerospace companies to participate in the Boeing airborne warning and control system offset arrangements.

Mr. Atkins: During the course of 1988 my Department organised a series of seminars on the United States civil aerospace market. The scope for selling to Boeing and participating in the AWACS offset arrangements figured prominently in these.

Mr. Hanley: Does my hon. Friend not agree that following the great success of the provision of Harriers for the US forces by British Aerospace, his Department should encourage further co-operation for the benefit of the economies and the defence of these two nations?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is right. The Harrier has been one of the most successful programmes involving both military and civil aerospace companies in this country. It is worth reminding the House, in case it has forgotten, that the positive trade balance in aerospace products is about £2·4 billion per annum. That makes it an extremely successful industry.

Mr. Madden: Does the Minister agree that it would be helpful to good industrial relations in the electronics industry if Plessey and GEC took the opportunity to announce publicly that they intend to sever their links with the secret blacklisting organisation, the Economic League, and will stop using its secret and often illegal services?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment upon that matter, and I do not intend to.

Mr. Haselhurst: While my hon. Friend will agree that no guarantees were offered under the offset arrangements, can he say how far the Boeing aircraft company has honoured the intent?

Mr. Atkins: As my hon. Friend is perfectly well aware, these are predominantly matters for the Ministry of Defence. I can tell him that to date over 900 United Kingdom firms have made contact with Boeing through the AWACS offset office. Of those, 200 have visited Boeing plants, and Boeing claims that competitive opportunities have been made available to more than 100 British companies. There is stilll much evaluation being carried out by the Ministry of Defence which has already accepted about £150 million as offset, has rejected £77 million, and is still examining £403 million. When those figures are clear, my hon. Friend will be able to ascertain, as will I and the Ministry of Defence, how successful the offset agreement has been.

Grants

Mr. Gill: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to simplify the range and complexity of grants to trade and industry and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Atkins: The White Paper "DTI—the department for Enterprise" (Cm. 278), published in January 1988, outlines a number of changes in the grants available to business. They simplify the range and reduce the complexity of DTI grants.

Mr. Gill: I welcome that reply, but I ask my hon. Friend to consider that there is still a proliferation of grants, and that they represent an intervention in, and a distortion of, market forces. Does he agree that one man's grant is another man's tax burden?

Mr. Atkins: Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have some sympathy with the point expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). However, where areas of exceptionally high social or industrial need have required assistance, Governments of all political persuasions have always provided grants to help. Only a day or two ago, we published the third reprint of a document relating to the enterprise initiative, which includes a further export initiative, as well as another item on managing for the 1990s—all of which clarify what is available under, for example, the enterprise initiative, which is being extremely well received by industry.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister accept that although the clarification to which he refers is commendable, the Government's lower priority for, and cuts in, regional aid have gone far enough, and that he should resist the blandishments of his marketeering hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill)?

Mr. Atkins: Although the hon. Gentleman makes well for his constituency a case with which I am familiar, he is wrong. We have said that we are committed to providing the same sort of money for the regions as we have in the past, and we hope to meet that objective.

Mr. William Powell: Does my hon. Friend accept that, notwithstanding the complexity of the grants for many people, they have proved of significant benefit to the assisted area of Corby during the last eight or nine years? They have contributed to reducing the unemployment level there from being among the highest in Europe, when the Conservative Government came to office, to the situation where, in not many months from now, it will be one of the lowest.

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend never fails to draw the right conclusions about the effort that has been put into Corby. It is a classic case of a town given a resource that was needed at the time, and which has since become very successful—so much so, that Corby has the common sense regularly to return a Conservative Member of Parliament. As long as Corby continues doing so, my hon. Friend will be able to represent its success story as often as may be necessary.

Mr. Pike: Will the Minister accept that a surprisingly high number of large firms and a considerable number of small firms do not know the sources of grants and assistance? Will the Government take urgent steps to

review that aspect yet again, to ensure that industry receives the help and assistance that is essential if the current balance of trade problem is to be reversed?

Mr. Atkins: In that case, the hon. Gentleman and his party cannot be critical of the advertising employed by the Department to get across exactly that message to the people who need to know it. If the hon. Gentleman, who I know to be an assiduous constituency Member, needs a telephone number or contact, he has only to tell me. I shall ensure that he is given one.

Efficiency

Mr. Adley: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what factors he considers to be essential in enabling commerce and industry to function efficiently.

Mr. Forth: Commerce and industry will function most efficiently in an economy where inflation is under control, markets are open, and individual enterprise is encouraged and rewarded. The overriding aim of the Department's policy is to create such a climate.

Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be marginal disappointment that he did not mention transport? Does he agree that first-class transport links with the regions are of the highest priority if commerce and industry is to succeed? Does he further agree that the opening of the Channel tunnel presents a tremendous opportunity to industrialists, particularly in the distant regions, and that the provision of first-class rail facilities to the west and north-west, and to Scotland, are also of the highest priority? The proposals in a recent booklet, "Tunnel Vision", published by the Conservative Political Centre can be commended to his Department. Will he please read it, and then discuss its proposals with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport?

Mr. Forth: I seem to recall that my hon. Friend kindly gave me a copy of the booklet to which he refers, which I read with interest and enthusiasm. It was probably one of the most excellent booklets that I can recall emanating from the Conservative Political Centre.
While I acknowledge my hon. Friend's involvement and his enthusiasm for the infrastructure. I hope that he will accept that investment in railways has been running at a high level and continues to do so. My colleagues in the Department of Transport have turned down no railway investment projects since 1979. I believe that the plans for the connections with the Channel tunnel are in excellent hands with British Rail, and—supported by my hon. Friend, as I know that they are—I am sure that they will be turned out correctly, in the right form and at the right time.

Mr. Skinner: The Minister said earlier that there should be no interference with the free flow of market forces if industries are to function effectively. One of his colleagues has said the opposite: he believes in grants being allowed to various firms.
May I make a suggestion? Will the Minister tell hon. Members who do not want the grants in their constituencies to hand them over to the areas—especially Labour areas—where people can be encouraged to take intermediate grants, such as Bradford, Bolsover and Bassetlaw? If Conservative Members do not want the grants, we will have them.

Mr. Forth: The essential difference between the hon. Gentleman's approach and ours is that under his party's Government, money was thrown indiscriminately at areas and companies that often did not need it. The present Government, however, have targeted available resources accurately and have achieved a much better result for it. Successive elections have shown that the people of this country well understand that the approach taken by the hon. Gentleman's party was a failure, and that the approach taken by my party is a success.

Internal Market

Mr. Kirkhope: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made by his Department in making British business men aware of the opportunities presented by the completion of the internal market in 1992.

Mr. Alan Clark: Over 90 per cent. of the firms are aware of the single market challenge. My Department's "Europe Open for Business" campaign is concentrating on encouraging action by firms throughout the country.

Mr. Kirkhope: Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the remarks of the deputy director general of the CBI, who has said that he believes that British business men are sleepwalking towards the 1992 opportunities? A recent CBI survey has shown that very few of the largest companies in the country have been doing what is necessary to improve their training facilities and sales organisations, and that only one in five has been reviewing its strategy towards Europe. Does not that suggest that more must be done by businesses themselves?

Mr. Clark: Certainly there is always scope for businesses to raise their levels of activity in that regard. My Department, however, carries out a weekly survey of 100 companies with 10 or more employees, and we are now

finding that reaction is at least 60 per cent. Favourable—that is, at least 60 per cent. of those interviewed are considering what action they should be taking. The CBI itself is staging a number of conferences and seminars, one of which my hon. Friend will be attending tomorrow.

Mr. Henderson: In the course of the Minister's campaign for enlightenment, has he warned the sub-contractors to Ford at Dagenham of the danger to their businesses of the move of the Sierra production line from Dagenham to Belgium? Is that a sign of things to come for much of British business in 1992?

Mr. Clark: The commercial decision of the Ford Motor Company is based on such matters as productivity, cost and efficiency. If it judges that an appropriate step, it should be seen in the context of Ford's other investment decisions, notably the investment of £700 million in Bridgend, and it must reflect—to some extent, at any rate—the work practices at the factory from which the line is being moved.

Mr. Grylls: Does my hon. Friend agree that most business men would consider one of the most important parts of the 1992 market the opening up of opportunities to sell to continental Ministries of Defence, Post Offices and telecommunications businesses? What progress is being made in opening up Europeanwide procurement so that everyone can have a go at selling to everyone else?

Mr. Clark: The public procurement directive is one of the most important of all the single market measures. It will certainly be in place in full by 1992. I emphasise that the inherent dangers are of the same dimension as the opportunities. British companies that have comfortable relationships with, for example, their local authorities may find that they are faced with competition from European firms. They should put themselves in a position in which they are able to compete for public procurement contracts in the Community.

Mr. Viraj Mendis

Mr. Roy Hattersley: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the actions that his Department proposes to take concerning the arrest this morning of Mr. Viraj Mendis.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): A deportation order was made against Mr. Mendis in December 1986. He then entered a church in Manchester to frustrate its implementation. Mr. Mendis has pursued his legal remedies over the last two years but these are now exhausted. Since it is clear that he is not prepared to abide by the law, I instructed the immigration service to arrange for him to be removed to Sri Lanka as soon as is practicable. This morning he was removed from the church and has been placed in detention to await removal to Sri Lanka.
Mr. Mendis, who was admitted to this country as a student in 1973, has been here in breach of the law since 1975. The decision to deport him has been reviewed and endorsed by the independent appellate authorities, the divisional court and the Court of Appeal. His petition for leave to move to the House of Lords has also been rejected. On 28 December, the divisional court rejected a further application for judicial review of my refusal to give assurances to his solicitors that no steps would be taken to remove him pending a substantive response to their representations and that no steps would be taken to remove him for at least 48 hours following notification of the response.
I have reviewed this case on many occasions in the light of various representations received on his behalf and I have considered further representations put forward by his solicitors and others acting on his behalf. I can, however, find no reason to alter my view that Mr. Mendis does not qualify for refugee status under the United Nations convention, or to reverse my decision to deport him, which was taken and has been reviewed in accordance with the law. [Interruption.] I have made it clear throughout that I have been prepared to accept the decision of the courts. In the absence of any indication that Mr. Mendis was prepared to do the same, I felt bound to instruct my officials to enforce the law.

Mr. Hattersley: First, will the Home Secretary find out why up to 100 police and immigration officers were employed to detain a man who had already made it clear that he would not resist arrest, and why his detention required what amounts to criminal damage to church property?
Secondly, will the Home Secretary tell us why—when his own Minister of State was discussing with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) the prospect of Mr. Mendis being removed to a third country—it was thought necessary to remove Mr. Mendis this morning, before those discussions were completed?
Thirdly, will the Home Secretary confirm that the judicial reviews, on which he leans and behind which he hides, relate entirely to the risks that Mr. Mendis faced had he returned to Sri Lanka in 1985? How can he possibly

justify returning Mr. Mendis to that country four years later, when his prospects and the situation have radically changed?
Finally, does the Home Secretary not understand that, when he considers applications for asylum, in cases of doubt the benefit should go to the applicant, for if the Government make a mistake the price that may be paid is the death of the man or woman they have deported from this country? Does he not realise the damage that he has done to the international reputation of this country by repudiating Britain's traditional role as a place of refuge for the oppressed and the disadvantaged?

Mr. Hurd: The responsibility for the operation this morning rested with the chief constable, but of course he had to take into account the fact that the church had been the centre of attention and that many supporters and friends of Mr. Mendis had gathered there. There were 300 people around that church—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]—on Friday of last week, when there was a report that the immigration service and the police were about to act. Within minutes of the police operation this morning, at least 60 people gathered for the same purpose.
I believe that the chief constable was entirely justified in making arrangements designed to make sure that this operation could be conducted quickly, smoothly and without injury. That he achieved, and I believe he was right to concentrate in that way.
The police at each stage shouted to Mr. Mendis inviting him to come out, and it was only when no reply was received that they broke down two doors, one door and then another. They will of course compensate for the damage done. I do not believe that most people would accept that it is right to allow anyone to defy the law by entering a church. It would also be unfair to the many thousands of people who abide by immigration decisions.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the third country possibility. We have made it clear to Mr. Mendis and his friends for months that our concern was that he should leave this country. The country to which he went was a matter for him, and if people could, on his behalf, organise a third country to receive him, we made it absolutely clear that that would receive no objection from us. The difficulty until very recently has been that Mr. Mendis has himself excluded any such possibility, and no such prospect has been open to him.
It is right that I should keep in touch with the situation in Sri Lanka as it is today, as it has developed, and in the letter written on my behalf to Mr. Mendis's solicitors this morning I made it clear that I had done so.
We have a tradition, which we observe and scrupulously uphold, of following the United Nations convention on refugees. Mr. Mendis has received full legal advice throughout and has gone through all the legal processes, which are abundant, provided by the law.
What we cannot accept—and what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is really arguing—is that, because someone has developed strong political views since he came here or because there is disorder in the country from which he came, he has developed thereby a right to stay here. That argument has been put by him, but he has no such right under the United Nations convention, and that fact has been reaffirmed today by the representative in London of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mr. Volfing. That argument


has been deployed before the adjudicator, before the appeal tribunal and before the Court of Appeal, and on every occasion it has been rejected.

Mr. Robert Litherland: First, I would like to express outrage and sadness at what happened in the Church of the Ascension this morning. The Minister of State will recall our meeting prior to the Christmas recess when he advised me to take a message back to the Bishop of Manchester and Viraj Mendis's solicitor to seek an alternative country. I did that in good faith. Ministers know full well that those moves are being undertaken. Why will the Home Secretary not honour that part of the bargain and allow time for Mr. Mendis to find a country of security?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member has taken a continuous and conscientious interest in this matter as the constituency Member. However, he will agree, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), has just confirmed to me, that in our discussions with the hon. Gentleman or with others, we have done exactly what I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). We have explained that we have no objection if a third country can be found to accept Mr. Mendis. That has not happened. Whatever efforts have been made have not been successful. We gave no deadline for this and I do not believe that it is reasonable to delay action simply because it is alleged that the prospect of a third country still exists. We have no evidence that that prospect exists.
The hon. Gentleman knows this case backwards. He knows that Mr. Mendis entered this country as a student. He overstayed. He found a new course of study and failed his examinations three times. He went to ground and when he was traced again he said that he had married and therefore should be allowed to stay. His marriage collapsed and his wife confirmed that he had entered into it solely in an attempt to stay.
Faced with those facts, my predecessor decided on deportation. Mr. Mendis developed political opinions about Sri Lanka which he had not expressed when he was in that country. He used those political opinions to develop the legal case against deportation. That was considered by my predecessor and myself, rejected by the adjudication panel and by the Court of Appeal and leave was refused in the House of Lords. The hon. Gentleman knows that background as well as I. Against that background, I cannot believe that he is whole-hearted in support of the case.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite extensive and continuing research in Sri Lanka, no organisation, be it Tamil, Singhalese or Burgher, in Sri Lanka knows of any reason why Mr. Mendis should not return to that country? Furthermore, is it not a fact that Mr. Mendis, this aged student, flouted the immigration laws of this country which in itself is a crime? More importantly, hon. Members on both sides of the House will be aware that there are genuine refugees from Sri Lanka in this country. Mr. Mendis has undermined the cause of the genuine refugees. This man is a charlatan and he lives in a Walter Mitty world. I hope very much that he will be deported forthwith.

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend who has a close knowledge, perhaps unrivalled in the House, of the situation in Sri Lanka. It is worth recalling—the Sri Lankan high commissioner recalled this on the radio this morning—that the high commissioner wrote an unsolicited letter to me in 1985 and issued a press release stating that Mr. Viraj Mendis was not wanted in Sri Lanka for any civil or other offence. The high commissioner repeated that on the radio this morning, and said that Mr. Mendis was free to stay or to go back to Sri Lanka if he wanted and that he would not be in any danger because of his political views or for the campaign that he has been waging here, which does not seem to have been greatly noticed in Sri Lanka at all.

Mr. Tony Banks: It will be now.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Home Secretary tell the House—whatever the history of Mr. Viraj Mendis—whether he condones the behaviour of the police this morning, who broke into the home of a minister of the Church, cut the telephone wires to that home, smashed property in that home to take out a man who has indicated his intention to apply to the European Court of Human Rights, and about whom there are current negotiations between the Church and the Home Office, between Members of Parliament and the Home Office and who, at the end of the day, has rights like everyone else to be protected from the autocratic long arm of the Government and to have his civil liberties protected for as long as he remains within these shores? Does the Secretary of State condone what has happened, or is that what we are now to expect from him and his Government?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is well astray. The police obtained a warrant and invited Mr. Mendis to come out. No wires were cut; an alarm system was turned off. In taking such a line, Father Methuen, with whom I and others have had discussions, knew that that might happen. It can have been no surprise to him. He knows perfectly well that the fact that someone is in a church does not give him any immunity from the law in this country.
The Church needs to think very carefully before it enters into a habitual custom of giving shelter to people who defy the law. The hon. Gentleman spoke as if this were some arbitrary sudden act of the Executive. He cannot have been listening to what I said. This matter has continued for more than two years since my predecessor authorised extradition. Taking full advantage of his legal rights in this country, Mr. Mendis has gone through every possible safeguard. It is the very opposite of an arbitrary decision by the Executive. The case involves a man who has exploited every legal possibility, but has found that ultimately they have come to an end.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: This House is fairly used to inundation with the normal ration of humbug and cant, but have we not moved on from the days when a man or woman could escape the criminal law merely by reciting the Lord's Prayer and claiming benefit of clergy to an era in which the provisions—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not a criminal."]—of the Race Relations Act 1976 have laid down clearly that religious or racial—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not a criminal."]—I am prepared to wait until I get silence—

Hon. Members: Don't call him a criminal then.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Every hon. Member has the right to express his opinion.

Mr. Allan Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order, but it must be a point of order and not a point of dispute.

Mr. Roberts: Surely no hon. Member can use the privilege of the House to accuse someone who has not committed a criminal offence of being a criminal when we are dealing with a civil issue.

Mr. Speaker: We have freedom of speech in the House. What has been said is not out of order.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Have we not, through the Race Relations Act, laid down the principle that in law nobody shall be in a different position because of what they do, in religious, or what they are, in racial or in any other status or by sex? [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I am being far briefer than the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) was yesterday. Is it not the case that the criminal law in this country does and shall apply irrespective of racial or religious circumstances in which people choose to place themselves?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is correct. The right of sanctuary was abolished in 1623. I cannot think that anyone seriously would put forward the proposition that, when somebody has been through the courts time and again and has had his argument rejected and is still defying the law, he should be put in a special position and have discrimination in his favour against all those who are law-abiding simply because he has taken shelter in a church.

Mr. Tony Benn: First, is the Home Secretary aware that his decision to arrest Mr. Mendis, who has lived here for 15 years and has been actively assisting in immigration cases, will be seen as an attack upon the black community? Secondly, is he aware that Mr. Mendis had expressed a readiness to go to a third country and that the Churches are now negotiating to see whether they can find some other country which is more liberal than our own?
Thirdly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a decision was made to use maximum force and violence against a church which was interpreting its responsibility, with the support of the bishop and, as far as I can make out, with the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury and bishops abroad, when its only responsibility and interest was in the preservation of Mr. Mendis's life and the fear that he would at least be imprisoned? Fourthly, is he aware that his decision shows the Government's policy on human rights as odiously hypocritical and will be seen everywhere in that way?

Mr. Hurd: I must say that I am surprised that so many Opposition Members and other people, even the right hon. Gentleman, should take up this case. The right hon. Gentleman is doing no benefit to the great majority of people from the communities about whom he is purporting to speak. The great majority of them are law-abiding. The great majority of applicants for asylum go through the processes—it is often difficult—and abide by the result. It is not a service to human rights or even to

the progressive principles for which the right hon. Gentleman purports to stand to take up this case. It is a throughly bad case from that point of view.
On the information available to me, I do not accept that the chief constable authorised the use of anything in the way of excessive force. He would have been very remiss if he had attempted to conduct this operation in a way which would have protracted it and enabled the crowd that gathered to gather before he had removed Mr. Mendis.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that anybody who seeks to understand immigration procedures and listens carefully to the facts of this case must come to the conclusion that my right hon. Friend is right?

Mr. Hurd: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend, who has wide and much respected experience of these matters.

Mr. Paul Boateng: Scant regard was shown this morning to Church property in Manchester. Will the right hon. Gentleman show a greater regard to the office of the Bishop of Manchester and give an undertaking to the House that there will be no attempt to remove Viraj Mendis until he has completed his representations to him? Will he show at least some respect for the sincere Christian conviction that, were this man to be returned to Sri Lanka, he would face death? Will the Government show greater respect for that conviction and concern than they have shown for the human rights of Mr. Mendis?

Mr. Hurd: I am not attacking or criticising the bishop or the hon. Member for the constituency in which the church lay. I entirely accept that they have their convictions, although I believe they are misguided and, as regards the use of the church, have led them on to an unfortunate path. The question that my predecessor and I and all the courts I have enumerated have considered is whether Mr. Mendis has a well-founded fear of persecution if he returns to Sri Lanka. In my view, and in the view of all those who have considered the matter through the innumerable procedures that I have listed, the answer is no.

Mr. Tony Favell: Having had my advice bureau disrupted by the supporters of Mr. Mendis, I must say that they have no grounds for complaint about the excellent way in which the police behaved this morning. Can my right hon. Friend say whether this man failed his examinations in 1976, 1979, 1980, and 1981, who was supporting him during that time and whether he has carried out any gainful employment apart from being an immigration adviser to Manchester city council for one short period?

Mr. Hurd: He was certainly not fortunate in his student career. It eventually came to an end, he entered into a marriage—I have given the background to its collapse and the reasons that his wife gave about why he entered into it—and he then took up his political opinions. It is worth reporting the view of the adjudicator on those political opinions. He said:
the appellant's public and open espousal of the separatist cause was nothing more than a deliberate and cynical attempt on his part to place himself in such a position that he could not be deported to Sri Lanka".


Nothing that has happened since has caused me to doubt that.

Mr. Alfred Morris: What is the Home Secretary prepared to tell the House about impending developments in this disturbing case, both their nature and timing?

Mr. Richard Holt: That he has gone.

Mr. Hurd: Mr. Justice Drake, when he entered the final judgment on the matter just before Christmas, said that we had acted reasonably and, presumably, would continue to do so. That is crucial to achieving our objective and in not having it prevented or reversed. The undertaking given this morning in the letter sent to the solicitors is that deportation to Sri Lanka will not take place before the middle of Friday.

Sir Dudley Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the best will in the world, Britain cannot become the dumping ground for political refugees or, even more important, for quasi-political refugees? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of the many immigrants in this country will consider that his decision today has been just and fair?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is quite right. No one wants to conduct a vendetta against anybody. I hope that the House will consider the implications of changing the policy that the Labour party has criticised. Once it became established that we had moved outside the boundaries of the United Nations convention and the test of the well-founded fear of prosecution into a situation in which people had only to come here and say that they came from a disordered and troubled part of the world and preferred to remain here—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is not our policy."] Well, that is the implication of the Labour party's line. Once that became established, we could say goodbye to the principle of firm and fair immigration control.

Ms. Joan Walley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for clarification? Within your hearing, a statement was made by a Conservative Member, during an earlier question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), that Mr. Mendis had gone. Will the Home Secretary clarify whether he has gone?

Mr. Speaker: That is a question that the hon. Lady might have asked if I had called her.

Mr. Holt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am the hon. Member who made that comment. It is difficult for Conservative Members to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, for a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, the hon. Gentleman had better not persist with this point of order. This is an Opposition Day in which there are two important debates, so there is great pressure to speak. I shall call two more hon. Members from each side and then we must move on.

Mr. Churchill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the great majority of people in Greater Manchester will welcome the removal of Viraj Mendis from the United Kingdom? Is he further aware that this gentleman has cost the ratepayers of Manchester tens of thousands of pounds in recent years and that they will be glad to see the back of him? Is it not a strange commentary

on a party that aspires to government that it should seek support for a man who has illegally overstayed for 13 years and who has contracted a sham marriage to stay here? Does it not show how unfit the Labour party is for government and how out of touch it is with the people of this country?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I repeat my genuine surprise—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hurd: —that the Opposition Front Bench should have espoused a cause which, on examination—they should have undertaken such an examination—they would find to be without merit.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Every law-abiding citizen, every person who worships in a church as I do, or in a gudwara, a mosque or a temple, will be deeply outraged by the Government's action. The Home Secretary and the Minister of State have endorsed state hooliganism at the same time as lecturing football supporters on hooliganism. They have violated human rights at the same time as lecturing the Russians on human rights. They have damaged relations between the Church and the state. They have brought the police into immigration practice and procedure, in conflict with the black community, which is something that has been missing for many years.
As the Home Secretary knows, I had a constituent who sought sanctuary in a temple in Leicester. That matter was resolved by patient negotiation between the Home Secretary, the police and the person involved, who then left the temple voluntarily.
Will the Home Secretary confirm the following? First., when did the Prime Minister know about this matter? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, at 10.33 am yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) and a delegation of Members of Parliament went to see the Prime Minister at 10 Downing street? Secondly, will the Home Secretary confirm that compensation will be paid to the Church authorities and that an apology will be given to Mr. Mendis for the damage to his property? Finally, in view of the action that has been taken and the involvement in the case of the Minister of State, will the right hon. Gentleman immediately consider dismissing the Minister of State from office?

Mr. Hurd: That is a ludicrous contribution. Yes, the Greater Manchester police will pay Mr. Methuen compensation for the damage to his doors. We are fortunate that no one was injured in an affair which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) has said, the supporters of Mr. Mendis have made a cause celebre and in which there was considerable possibility of a sizeable fracas—which, in fact, was avoided.
Yes, of course I have kept my colleagues informed. No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point. The only deduction that can be drawn from his argument is that people who defy the law should be in some way absolved from the consequences of doing so because they take shelter in a church or mosque. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will accept that that argument is not one which his constituents of any background would accept because it is grossly unfair to the majority of law-abiding citizens.

Mr. Robert Key: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary knows that, in the past year or so, he has dealt with two cases of serious political refugees on my behalf, and has done so impeccably. Does he agree that it is extremely unfair that Mr. Mendis should receive preferential treatment over many years when there are genuine cases? Is my right hon. Friend aware that ordinary pew-filling members of the Church of England are aghast at yet another example of silly behaviour by Church of England clergy and their bishops? Finally, can he give any estimate of what this affair has cost over 14 years?

Mr. Hurd: There has been no discrimination on our part in favour of this applicant. What has distinguished Mr. Mendis is the fact that he has been skilfully advised and that he has used to the full all the provisions and safeguards provided by the law—and has even attempted one or two others. That is what distinguishes him from my hon. Friend's constituents. As I have said, I do not want to enter into controversy with the Church about this. However, no one who has studied the record of this could accuse us of any shortages of patience or reasonableness.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Home Secretary aware that the situation in Sri Lanka is extremely tense and that there is enormous danger for anyone there who holds strong political views? As the Home Secretary has received affidavit evidence to the effect that Viraj Mendis's life would be in danger in Sri Lanka, does he not agree that he has flouted the United Nations convention on refugees of 1951? Does he further agree that he should now guarantee that Viraj Mendis is not returned to Sri Lanka and that the opportunities are given, which he knows full well are being negotiated, for Viraj Mendis to go to a country that is prepared to abide by the United Nations declaration of human rights, unlike this country, the Government of which is apparently prepared to flout that declaration?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman should get in touch with Mr. Volfing, who is the London representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and therefore perhaps in a more qualified position than the hon. Gentleman to interpret the 1951 convention. Mr. Volfing has told us privately for some time and, off his own bat, has helpfully issued a statement today saying that in his view the hon. Gentleman's thesis is wrong and that Mr. Mendis does not qualify under the United Nations convention. I would have hoped that Opposition Front Bench spokesmen would have studied that kind of evidence before commenting.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Litherland: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the position of my constituent, Viraj Mendis, in the light of the information given to this House via the Home Secretary today".
The Home Office—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This application is being made to me and I must listen to it.

Mr. Litherland: The Home Office was well aware that other countries' embassies were being contacted in an

effort to find asylum for Mr. Mendis as an alternative to deportation to Sri Lanka. The action of police in violating the home of Father Methuen and the Church of the Ascension gives cause for grave concern, especially in a so-called civilised and Christian society. However, the intention of the Home Office to deport Viraj Mendis to Sri Lanka is unforgiveable and unjust.
The court appeals have at no time taken into consideration the instability in that country. Mr. Mendis will be returned on the flimsy assurance from Sri Lanka that he is not in danger—when the Foreign Office is advising British tourists and business men not to visit that country.
If we sincerely believe in the preservation of human life, Mr. Mendis should be allowed to remain, or time should be afforded for him to seek another country or to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights. This is a moral issue and this House should recognise it as such and not demean itself by allowing Mr. Mendis to return to face persecution, torture or even loss of life.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the position of Mr. Viraj Mendis in the light of the information given to this House by the Home Secretary".
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20, I have to take into account all the requirements of the order and announce my decision without giving reasons to the House. I have listened with care to what the hon.Gentleman has said. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given precedence over the business already set down for this evening or tomorrow. I regret that the matter that the hon.Gentleman has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Nellist.

Mr. Nellist: Given that the statement by the Home Secretary of the decision that he has announced today revolves around his and the Government's assessment of human rights up to and beyond 1985 in Sri Lanka, were I or one of my hon. Friends to apply to you through a ballot or any other means for an Adjournment debate to test in the House that assessment of human rights in Sri Lanka, would you expect the Home Secretary to defer any action until that debate had taken place?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is right. If he wishes to put in for a second Adjournment debate for tonight he can do so, but, of course, it would have to come on before 10.30 pm.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Mr. Mendis is to be deported to Sri


Lanka on Friday and many hon. Members believe that he faces the risk of persecution if he is deported, may I say that my view on the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is something that the hon. Gentleman cannot do on a point of order. He cannot express his view. I say to him and other hon. Members that I am sorry I have not been able to call them, but we have an important debate today in which other hon. Members wish to take part. Supplementary questions on the private notice question went on for 35 minutes, which is far longer than I would normally allow. I cannot hear a question wrapped up in a point of order.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, the hon. Member wishes to put a question not to me but the Home Secretary.

Mr. Madden: Can I put a question to you, Mr. Speaker? Can the House, through you, ask the Home Secretary not to deport Mr. Mendis to Sri Lanka unless and until—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That point has already been made to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As today is an Opposition day, could you confirm that it would be in order for the Opposition to change the subject of the debate. which they have on the Order Paper, to cover that which we have been talking about this afternoon—if they believe that this case is as important as they say it is—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That would not be possible today, because three motions are already on the Order Paper.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall call Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to read Hansard to see what Conservative Members have said during proceedings on this private notice question. On a number of occasions they referred to Mr. Mendis either as acting illegally or as a criminal. That was specifically said by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). The truth is that it is everybody's right—whatever the Home Office says—to use proper representation through the courts and the tribunal. Therefore, Mr. Mendis is not a criminal.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now seeking to continue question time on a point of order.

Mr. Cohen: No, I am not.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cohen: No. The point of order I am after—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to persist in—

Mr. Cohen: Let me finish.

Mr. Speaker: I have heard enough of what the hon. Gentleman is saying to know that it is not a point of order.

Mr. Cohen: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman before he rises again—

Mr. Bob Cryer: Listen to him.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised is not a matter for me at all What hon. Members have alleged in this House is not out of order.

Mr. Cohen: Of course it is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. For example—this was the substance of my point—many Opposition Members would regard the Chancellor as a criminal. Whether he is or not, we would regard him as such. Is it therefore right for us to sit here and tell him that he is a crook? Conservative Members have said that Viraj Mendis is a criminal when he is not. He was acting within the proper democratic procedures. He—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is abusing the privileges of the House by seeking to raise points which are not matters for me. [Interruption.] Order. He well knows that it would not he in order to make such allegations about hon. Members of this House. Mr. Mendis is not a Member of this House. What was said this afternoon was not out of order.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While respecting you, Mr. Speaker, and always respecting and supporting your decisions, if you felt at any stage like reconsidering your decision, many hon. Members on this side of the House would support you, because we believe, quite fundamentally, that the Labour party on this issue is completely out of touch with the mass population of this country. If the subject were debated, yet again the Labour party's unsuitability for the government of this country would be fully demonstrated.

Mr. Speaker: I have announced my decision.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, I have announced my decision.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I shall hear Mr. Tony Lloyd, but I warn the hon. Members concerned that there is great pressure on the subsequent debates. I hope that they will not make submissions to me afterwards saying how sad it is that they have not been called.

Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stretford): This is a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that the Home Office has stated that Viraj Mendis will be deported on Friday I do not challenge your ruling on the Standing Order No. 20 application, but that means that there is a limited amount of parliamentary time available between now and his deportation. Given the fact that it is important that the House has the opportunity to challenge the Home Secretary's decision and that we at least have explained to us his assessment of the risk faced by Viraj Mendis in Sri Lanka, can you tell us, Mr. Speaker, when it will be possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) to have a reply from the Home Secretary on those points in a debate, which we have not been able to have this afternoon?

Mr. Speaker: I am frequently asked to advise on tactics, but that really is not a matter for me.

Mr. Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Question No. 4 to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) asked about the conduct between the Department of the Duchy of Lancaster and Church organisations in inner-city areas. In view of the Government's actions this morning, do you not think it appropriate that we have a statement from the Home Secretary tomorrow about the relations between Church organisations and the Government?

Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, the hon. Member was not present to ask that question. Whether or not there is a statement tomorrow is not a matter for me.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As there is a possibility that the Home Secretary will make a further statement before Friday, and taking into account the Government's obsession with deportations of a certain kind, can we have an assurance through you, Mr. Speaker, from the Home Secretary, that if and when that deportation takes place accompanying Mr. Mendis will be Roberto Fiore, an Italian who is wanted by the Italian authorities? He is a terrorist who has been in this country for seven years. Presumably, he is being guarded by the British police. Despite the fact that the Italian authorities are after him, the Home Secretary is keeping him here.

Mr. Speaker: None of that is for me. We must move on.

BILL PRESENTED

PESTICIDES (FEES AND ENFORCEMENT)

Mr. John MacGregor, supported by Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary Fowler, Mr. Secretary Ridley, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Donald Thompson and Mr. Richard Ryder, presented a Bill to substitute new provisions for section 18 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985; to amend section 19 of that Act; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Grants to the Redundant Churches Fund Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Elimination of Poverty in Retirement

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the appointment of a Minister with responsibility for retired people; to require local authorities to report annually on the condition of retired people; to require health authorities to report on their services for the elderly; to ensure that standing charges for gas, electricity, water and telephones are abolished for pensioners; to provide for concessionary transport schemes for the elderly; to ensure that unit costs for food are the same for small purchasers; and to ensure that the state old age pension is linked to average earnings.
This is my sixth attempt, with the support of hon. Members and hundreds of pensioner organisations all over Britain, to introduce—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will those hon. Members beyond the Bar please leave quietly?

Mr. Corbyn: This is my sixth attempt to introduce the Bill with the support of hon. Members and pensioner organisations all over Britain.
The House has a responsibility to debate the situation of pensioners and to enact measures to protect and improve their living standards. The Government are continually telling us that the number of elderly in our society is increasing, and that is true. There are now 9·5 million people of pensionable age and that number is likely
to increase into the next century. Instead of recognising the need to provide more resources for pensioners, the Government continually under-fund pension schemes, put
pressure on pensioners to take out private pension schemes, thus undermining the state scheme, and reduce the amount of state funding which benefits elderly people. The House should recognise that a civilisation should be judged on how well it treats its elderly, not on how well it escapes from its responsibility towards them.
Many statistics show the condition of elderly people. When the Social Security Act 1988 abolished supplementary benefit and what went with it, 30 per cent. of Britain's retired population were living on or below supplementary benefit levels. Despite the Government's claim that many elderly people are quite wealthy, at that time only 39 per cent. lived more than 140 per cent. above the level of supplementary benefit. In other words, at least 60 per cent. of Britain's elderly people live at a poor level, and 30 per cent. of them live below the poverty line. That is a scandal and the House should draw attention to it and enact my Bill to improve that situation.
We are in the middle of probably the mildest winter on record, but there are more deaths from hypothermia in winter than in summer and should there be cold weather later this month, next month or into March, the annual death toll as a result of hypothermia will become apparent. Hypothermia is often not recorded as the cause of death on death certificates by doctors in hospitals throughout Britain. They ascribe such deaths to other causes. But in reality many elderly people die in winter because their homes are too cold and they have insufficient money to feed themselves properly. Those are serious matters and it is a scandal that there should be twice as many deaths in winter through hypothermia than in summer.
We must challenge the Government's philosophy. In 1980, they broke the link between the real cost of living for pensioners as measured in the earnings index and


pensions, and they have encouraged pensioners to prepare for their old age through private investment. Instead, they should be ensuring that they are properly treated.
Above all, the Government have cut Health Service and local government expenditure so that everywhere the elderly bear the brunt of growing hospital waiting lists and are deprived of vital social services. An elderly person living at home, unable to go to a day centre because it is closed, unable to have meals on wheels or a home help because the services have been cut, is more likely to die in misery, poverty and loneliness than one who had that necessary local caring community support.
Over the past 15 years, the elderly have had to pay at least 6 per cent. more on average in housing costs and 2 per cent. more in transport costs, and their income from part-time employment has been halved.
The Government talk about inflation being low, but inflation is always higher for elderly people because they buy in small quantities rather than in bulk. The inflation index for elderly people over the past 15 years has been at least 12 points higher for the elderly than for the rest of the population.
The Bill is a seven-point plan which, if carried into law, would change the face of Britain and eliminate poverty among the elderly. If the House believes that pensioners should be properly treated, it should support the Bill and ensure that it becomes law.
First, the Bill requires the appointment of a Minister with special responsibility for retired people, who must report annually to the House on the condition of Britain's elderly.
Secondly, it requires local authorities to report annually on the condition of elderly people in their authority so that one can see the cuts that are taking place, or the complete lack of services for the elderly, such as meals on wheels, day centres or transport schemes in some parts of the country.
Thirdly, it requires health authorities to report annually on their services for the elderly—the length of waiting lists and the special treatment available for the elderly.
Fourthly—something for which many people have campaigned for many years-the Bill seeks to abolish standing charges for gas, electricity, water and telephones for elderly people, to prevent those services being cut off and to protect unit costs for other customers. Any codes of practice for cutting off services that gas and electricity boards presently have should become a statutory requirement so that their services are protected. Above all, the Exchequer should fund this provision rather than putting the burden on other consumers.
Fifthly, the Bill seeks to provide universal concessionary transport schemes so that free transport is available throughout Britain and not just in areas such as London and Sheffield, where pensioners have successfully persuaded local authorities to fund transport. All elderly people need the right of mobility.
Sixthly, the Bill seeks to deal with the point that I made earlier about increased inflationary costs for the elderly. Food prices are considerably higher when one buys in small rather than large quantities. It seeks to protect unit costs for food so that those who can afford to buy in bulk do not receive even greater discounts at the expense of the elderly.
Those matters are urgent and important, and I hope that the House will support them.
All that I have suggested is a palliative. It only helps to alleviate the already serious poverty among elderly people. The root cause of poverty among elderly people is the grossly inadequate level of the state old-age pension. It is among the lowest in Europe.
In 1980, the Government broke the link with the cost of living and it is time not just that that was restored but that in future pensioner couples should be guaranteed a pension equivalent to half average earnings, and single pensioners one third of average earnings. That would be a dramatic increase in pensions and it would bring the British pension more or less into line with some other wealthy industrial countries.
Britain is the seventh richest country in the world. It is a disgrace that so many elderly people die alone and in misery through hypothermia, not for lack of resources to provide for them, but for the lack of political will to distribute those resources to ensure that pensioners are well cared for and can live in decency in their retirement.
This is a modest and simple measure which, if enacted, will change the lives of pensioners and give them hope instead of misery. It will show Britain to be civilised towards the elderly rather than brushing them aside and treating them with contempt, as presently happens.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Bill Michie, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Paul Boateng, Mr. Chris Smith, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. Bernie Grant.

ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN RETIREMENT

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn accordingly presented a Bill to require the appointment of a Minister with responsibility for retired people; to require local authorities to report annually on the condition of retired people; to require health authorities to report on their services for the elderly; to ensure that standing charges for gas, electricity. water and telephones are abolished for pensioners; to provide for concessionary transport schemes for the elderly; to ensure that unit costs for food are the same for small purchasers; and to ensure that the state old age pension is linked to average earnings: And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 March and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

Opposition Day

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Child Benefit

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. In view of the late start of this debate, I appeal to spokesmen on both Front Benches, as well as to Back Benchers, for short contributions so that as many hon. Members as possible may be called.

Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to increase child benefit in line with other benefits.
The motion and debate honour the commitment that I gave at the Dispatch Box immediately before the recess that, at the earliest opportunity, the Opposition would give the House the chance to debate child benefit separately and to vote on its future. Our honouring that commitment contrasts with the position of the Government, who have twice frozen child benefit since the last election and never once asked for the opinion of the House or offered it a vote on whether the benefit should be frozen.
Our motion must be one of the shortest in the history of Supply debates. It concentrates with single-minded focus on uprating. We have spared the Government any political rhetoric; we have not included in the motion a breath of criticism of them. That rather contrasts with the Government amendment, in which they heap turgid approval on themselves and have the gall to invite the House to congratulate them on having reviewed the level of child benefit. They may have reviewed it, but that did not result in a single extra penny being added to it. We have resisted the strong temptation to criticise the Government in our motion. Nothing in it would cause offence to even the most delicate Conservative Back Bencher. There is nothing in it to prevent Conservative Members voting for it—provided that they agree with it. If they do not, they must vote it down.
The clear inference that we and the country will draw from Conservative Members' decision to vote down the motion is that they are against child benefit being uprated and are prepared to connive at the strategy of the Secretary of State, which is to freeze child benefit to death.
As briefly as possible, I want to show Conservative Back Benchers why they should not vote with the Secretary of State and why, instead, they should vote with us to defrost child benefit—

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: I shall give way on this occasion, but I am conscious of the advice from the Chair, and I shall not give way subsequently as readily as I might otherwise have done.

Mr. Hanley: I seek clarification of an interpretation that we might place on the motion. No doubt the hon. Gentleman would not like to be seen to be giving tax-free benefits to the wealthiest people in society. Is he now also pledging that he will make sure that child benefit is taxed in future, should there be a Labour Government?

Mr. Cook: That would be a far-fetched interpretation of the stark words on the Order Paper. The hon. Gentleman has disappointed me. I had rather hoped when he began his intervention that he was about to invite me to offer an interpretation of the motion as follows: that we want child benefit uprated in line with the tax cuts that the Government have made. If he had proposed that, I would have been inclined to accept it.
Turning now to the four major reasons—

Mr. Hanley: Answer my question.

Mr. Cook: I have already done so. What the hon. Gentleman infers from the motion cannot conceivably be read into its 10 words—

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: No. I said that I would not be able to give way as often as I might have done because of the time factor—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I have answered it. I do not propose to tax child benefit. My party has never done so, and I do not expect to do so. I hope that that finally gets through to the hon. Members for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) and for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), who have not been listening to what I am saying—[Interruption.] appreciate that the hon. Member for Pembroke wants to carry on a dialogue by himself. If he does, I suggest that, for the convenience of the House, he removes himself to the Tea Room. Let us get on with the debate.
Of course we oppose the taxation of child benefit. There has never been any suggestion to the contrary. I should be inclined to examine the issue again when child benefit reflects the cost of looking after a child. At a time when it reflects one third of that cost it appears utterly ludicrous to suggest that we lower its value by another quarter. So I hope that in words of one syllable, carefully and slowly spelt out, I have finally got through to Conservative Members what we are trying to say. If the hon. Member for Pembroke intends to attend future debates, we can arrange for a blackboard for him.
I want to give four reasons why Conservative Members should vote to unfreeze child benefit before they tax it. The first is that child benefit provides the only recognition in our tax and benefit system of the extra costs of raising children. It is the only device for channelling resources from taxpayers without children to households with them. Almost every civilised nation recognises the extra costs of children and that those extra costs must be supported by taxation or benefits. Ironically, under a Government who claim to be the party of the family, Britain alone in Europe is limping towards 1992 refusing to accept that families with children are families with extra expenditure.
The second reason why child benefit should be kept and uprated is that it puts money in the hands of the mother, the parent who buys the food and chooses the children's clothes. It is an efficient way of ensuring help with the costs of children, and of ensuring that that help is spent mostly on the welfare of children. For many mothers, child benefit is the only stable, reliable and independent income on which they can count. The Secretary of State is much given to lecturing the nation on the evils of the dependency culture. Not uprating child benefit increases the dependence of mothers on men. If the House remotely represented the balance of the sexes in the electorate it


would not dream of tolerating the freezing by the Government of the benefit that goes to mothers. The only reason why the Government imagine they can get away with such a strategy is the grossly inadequate representation of the mothers of Britain in the Chamber.
The third reason why the benefit should be kept and uprated is that it reaches nearly every mother. If the objective is to help mothers, child benefit is well targeted—almost perfectly so: it hits 98 per cent. of its targets. It gets through to them, because it is simple, easily claimed and does not have to be reclaimed every time circumstances change. No stigma is attached to having a child benefit book. On the contrary, it is a badge of citizenship, not a label of poverty—

Mr. John Maples: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: I am sorry; I have made it clear that I wish to allow as much time as possible for hon. Members to participate—

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is frit.

Mr. Cook: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, the idea that I am afraid of him stretches credulity to snapping point.
The fourth reason why child benefit should be uprated and retained is that it provides a life-line to households seeking to clamber out of the poverty trap. It is the one benefit that does not penalise them if they manage to improve their income. It does not kick them back into poverty by clawing away from their benefits whatever they make in extra earnings.
For all these reasons, child beneft was universally welcomed when it was introduced. It was introduced by a Labour Government, but I refrain from claiming sole paternity rights to it. The objective of the debate is to seek cross-party support for child benefit. In 1975, it was warmly endorsed by the then Conservative Opposition—

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Cook: I am sorry, but I have a quotation of my own to share before the hon. Gentleman gives his. Conservative Members who were in opposition at the time claimed to have thought of child benefit themselves. The only problem was that they never got round to introducing it when they were in government. They were so keen on the idea of child benefit that as the official Opposition they pressed an amendment to oblige the Labour Government to uprate child benefit by law, not just once a year but twice a year. The Conservative spokesman at the time said:
I cannot see how a reputable case can be raised against that proposal. If a case is raised against it, it runs the risk of saying that, when the child benefit scheme comes in … the benefit will be steadily eroded … It is not a situation which we can accept." —[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 June 1975; c. 150.]
That spokesman was the gentleman with whom the Secretary of State has a job-share agreement at Richmond house—the Secretary of State for Health. These are changed days. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) is busy seeking to dismantle the NHS. The Secretary of State for Social Security is allowing child benefit to be eroded and to fade away through lack of uprating.
Since taking office 18 months ago, the Secretary of State would have been obliged—under the amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe—to uprate child benefit three times. Instead, he has never once uprated child benefit. He makes no bones about it. His decision is based on ideological reasons. In fairness, to the Secretary of State, although I may not often agree with his policies, I give him full marks for honesty and candour. He is opposed to universal benefits and wants to replace them with means-tested benefits. That must be for ideological reasons because nothing else could explain why he remains so blind to the abundant evidence provided by the Government's giant experiment with social security last April, which showed that means-tested benefits alone do not remove people from poverty—they keep them in poverty.
Family credit is the means-tested parallel to child benefit. The take-up of family credit has been a first-class disaster. A year ago we were promised ambitious figures for the take-up of family credit. The Minister of State promised a take-up rate of 60 per cent., and on one occasion the Secretary of State—I think that he was carried away at the time—promised a 70 per cent. take-up rate. It has never come anywhere near those figures. At its best, family credit peaked at 35 per cent.—half the promised rate.
A year ago, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), in a debate on family credit, described the 50 per cent. take-up rate of family income supplement as "minuscule and feeble". It is a great shame that he has now departed from the Department of Social Security. Would he were with us for this debate. If a take-up rate of 50 per cent. earned such a lofty rebuke from the hon. Gentleman, in what terms of contempt would be describe a take-up rate of 35 per cent.? That is the rate which has now been achieved by the replacement benefit that he and his colleagues devised in place of family income supplement.
Even worse is that we now know that the numbers are not increasing. At the end of November the number in receipt of family credit was more than 260,000—I use the figures given during the last social security questions. In an answer given to me last Friday the figure at the end of December was 255,000. I notice that one newspaper has put it about that the numbers on family credit fell last month because of the Christmas effect. Apparently, poor families forget to renew their applications in the hectic rush to complete their Christmas shopping.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Moore): I always hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but I know that—unlike some of his hon. Friends—he is conscious of accuracy and I would not want him to make too much of the point. To be precisely accurate, during the Christmas period there was a slow down in applications and processing. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that last week there were more than 17,000 applications—a record rate above the normal 10,000 to 13,000. The case load rate is running at at least, if not in excess of, 300,000—about the 40 per cent. level that we were discussing.

Mr. Cook: We have to be careful with the last phrase used by the Secretary of State. When he refers to case loads, he is referring not to those who receive family credit but to those receiving family credit plus those who have applied for it. The number of applications at the end of


both November and December was 47,000. I am sorry to say that his figure of over 300,000 is entirely consistent with 260,000 or thereabouts receiving family credit. If the Secretary of State is arguing that one of the problems with family credit is that over Christmas there is a seasonal fluctuation when the numbers fall while the Department of Social Security is on holiday, I regard that as another solid argument against relying on the means-tested benefit and for depending on child benefit, which is not subject to such seasonal fluctuations.
I want to make it clear that, because we criticise the take-up rate, the Secretary of State should not suggest, as he has once or twice been inclined to do, that we are opposed to a high take-up rate. On the contrary, we are worried that the people who are missing out on family credit are the very people who were hit by cuts in benefit last April. They are the mothers who lost free school meals for their children and who now have to face an average weekly bill of £6 for two children, or £8 if they live in Bradford under a Conservative council. They are the families who lost housing benefit and who are now saddled with part of the mounting rent arrears that have hit every housing authority since last April.
Throughout 1986–87, we were told that we did not need to worry about the families that were facing cuts in their budget through loss of free school meals and changes in housing benefit, because they would be more than compensated, and would come out smiling as a result of family credit. We now know that family credit is not getting through to them. They are left with the cuts that they faced last April and without the benefits that were designed to protect them.
We have also heard that even those who have received family credit are not fully compensated for their losses. There will shortly be broadcast a television programme on child poverty. Its makers set out to try to find a family receiving family credit that was better off than it was before the changes in social security. So desperate did they become in their hunt that they placed an advert in a tabloid newspaper inviting any family that was better off as a result of the April changes and the introduction of family credit to contact them. The producers have been unable to unearth a single family that is better off as a result of the changes, even if it is getting family credit.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am sorry that there has not been a response to the advertisement. However, two mothers came to my constituency surgery and told me that they were more than £20 a week better off. I should be happy to dig out the names and addresses and send them to the programme makers.

Mr. Cook: I should be delighted to look at those cases. However, my general experience, having gone through many cases, is that while there are people who are £20 a week better off in terms of receiving family credit, I have yet to see a case where they are better off by even £2 a week once one takes into account the loss of housing benefit and free school meals.
That brings us to the other problem with family credit, which is that it is savagely means tested. Those who manage to claim it find that they lose it at the rate of 70p for every extra £1 a week in income. In short, those at the bottom of the earnings league end up on a rate of marginal

taxation almost double the top rate of taxation on the wealthiest. As the Select Committee on Social Services pointed out in its report last October, 500,000 households —nearly every one of which has children—face marginal rates of taxation of nearly 70 per cent.
The truth is that child benefit has as its greatest strength exactly what the Government persist in seeing as its greatest weakness. It is that it does not go down as the income of the claimant goes up. Therefore, it boosts the escape of the claimant from poverty instead of drawing him back into the poverty trap. That is the importance of child benefit and that is why it should not be sacrificed.
As I understand it, the Secretary of State seeks to sacrifice child benefit on the sole ground that it is not the cheapest way to relieve poverty. The first response by the Opposition to the argument that child benefit should be phased out or should not be uprated because it is not an efficient way of relieving poverty is that those of us who have watched at close range the hardship, anxiety and despair inflicted by the cuts in child benefit last April will not be taken in by any pretence by the Government that they are motivated by an anxiety to do more for the poor.
To freeze child benefit is an odd way to go about helping the poor because that benefit goes to the poor. It goes to six times as many families in poverty or on the margins of poverty as does family credit. One in 12 claimants of child benefit earns less than £5,000 a year and one fifth of the income of such households comes from child benefit. One in three claimants of child benefit earns less than £10,000 a year and one seventh of the income of people in that group comes from child benefit.
It is curious that the Conservatives are rewriting the origins and history of child benefit. It was introduced in place of tax allowances precisely to target help to the poor, to provide a means of assisting the 1 million families with children that did not pay tax and therefore did not benefit from tax allowances. It was brought in to make sure that the benefit of a cash payment was of greater help to those who were poor than to those who were wealthy and who benefited most from tax allowances. The Labour Government were absolutely right to take the progressive step of converting tax allowances into cash benefits to help the poor.
The great mistake made by my colleagues in the last Labour Government was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) in his entertaining address to the annual general meeting of the Child Poverty Action Group. That mistake was not in converting tax allowances into child benefit, but in not keeping the old name of child tax allowance while continuing to pay the cash benefit. If they had done that, the history of child benefit over the past 10 years would have been quite different, because every time the present Government stumble on something that is labelled "tax allowance" their better instincts prevail and they uprate it. Every time they come to something with the danger warning "benefit", their reflex instincts take over and they cut it. How else can one explain the extraordinary contrast between a married man's tax allowance, which has gone up in real terms by 22 per cent. under this Government, and the fate of child benefit, which has been cut in real terms by 13 per cent.?
Since the uprating statement in October I have asked twice and now ask for the third time and demand an answer to the question of how the Government can manage to conclude that the cost of maintaining a wife has


gone up by one fifth while the cost of supporting a child has gone down by one eighth. By what feat of mental gymnastics do they square those different treatments? The truth is that the Government have made no such calculation. They keep cutting taxes because that is the best way to help the rich. That is the other reason that prevents us from taking them seriously when they claim that they are freezing child benefit to help the poor. Their interest in helping the poor fades into invisibility when compared to their preoccupation with helping the rich.
A neat arithmetical measure of the Goverment's priorities is provided by what happened to the £200 million saved by the freeze in child benefit. The Secretary of State kept one third of it for means-tested benefits for the poor while the Chancellor of the Exchequer siphoned off the other two thirds to fund tax cuts for the better off. There we have it. Tax cuts take greater priority over the poor on a ratio of 2:1. The people who lose as a result are the children. They are the innocent victims of all the fashionable chatter about selectivity and targeting. A letter sent by a mother to the Child Poverty Action Group says:
It is no use saying: 'the children shouldn't have been born in the first place'. The children are alive. They need feeding and clothing and treats. A happy secure funded childhood makes for a good adulthood".
The freeze on child benefit makes it more difficult for that mother and all other such mothers to provide that happy, secure, funded childhood. The cut in the real value of child benefit logically implies a cut in their expenditure on their children. I invite all hon. Members who do not want to see that happen and who are not happy to see tax cuts funded at the expense of children to join us in the Lobby to save child benefit.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Moore): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
notes with approval that the Government is providing over
four and a half billion pounds for child benefit this year and that it has carried out its statutory obligation to review the level of benefit each year; and welcomes the additional resources to be provided from April for low income families with children".
As always, we have heard an eloquent and in many ways amusing speech by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). I will take no lectures from any Opposition Member about the ways in which the Government, to the embarrassment of the last Labour Government, help families with children. Much of the hon. Gentleman's speech was buried under a great weight of collective amnesia. He seemed to have forgotten many of the antecedents of child benefit and many of the ways in which the Labour Government failed miserably, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, to help families with children. Much of his speech related more to child benefit than to the content of the Opposition motion, the indexation, or its absence this year, of child benefit.
It is important and germane first to try to remind the House of the record and background of child benefit because it is important to put the matter in perspective. The hon. Gentleman was right when he said that child benefit was introduced in 1975. The Opposition record on child benefit reminds me of earlier debates. It takes me back to the reality of Socialist economic failure at the time when the Labour Government lived in the unlovely embrace of trade union bosses. [Interruption.] Despite

sedentary interruptions from Opposition Members, I shall remind them and the House of what happened in 1975. I agree with the hon. Member for Livingston that it is important for us to remember the basis for this benefit. [Interruption.] Opposition Members might be embarrassed by this. In May 1975 the then Mrs. Castle had to admit to the first problem connected with the introduction of child benefit. These are uncomfortable facts for hon. Members who might not have been present in the House at the time. She said that it was
impossible to launch the scheme until 1977, and this has been a great disappointment to me personally. It was certainly our original intention that the benefit would start in April next." —[Official Report, 13 May 1975; vol 892, c. 336.]
That is April 1976. The idea was that the whole scheme would have been launched in the spring of 1977.

Mr. James Sillars: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Moore: Perhaps I could be allowed to proceed because we are under the pressure of time.
There was a detailed statement in May 1976 by Mr. Ennals, the then Secretary of State for Social Services. That statement was not greeted with great happiness by many Opposition Members who at that time were on the Government Benches. He talked about not starting the process of replacing child tax allowances with the new child benefit and said:
Introduction of the scheme in its original form would, however, have imposed an excessive strain on the pay policy which is vital to the Government's continuing success in overcoming inflation.
Later he talked about
the overriding need to contain public expenditure and the borrowing requirement as a further plank in the Government's economic strategy,".—[Official Report, 25 May 1976; Vol. 912, c. 284-85.]
He made it quite clear that, although the Government had wanted to launch the scheme in the spring of 1976 and again in 1977, there would be another delay. I shall come back to that.

Mr. Sillars: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the Budget surplus then compared with today?

Mr. Moore: I shall come to that, and to a comparison of support for families, to illustrate why the records are so different.
The situation in autumn 1976 will be familiar to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). It is germane to today's debate, in which the Opposition suggest annual automatic indexation. In autumn of 1976, there ended what was called a three-month working party involving the Government and the TUC. Whether that was the product of "Solomon binding" or of Dr. Wittevene and the International Monetary Fund, there followed an announcement that the benefit would not be introduced in 1976 or in spring 1977.
However, the agreement was—and this cannot be a comfortable memory for Opposition Members—that the child benefit plans of spring 1976 would take three years —I repeat, three years—until spring 1979 to introduce. That is part of the history of the benefit under Labour, who now criticise the Government for not indexing it this year. In 61 out of 62 months of Labour Government, there was a lower rate of child benefit, or its equivalent, than


during the whole of the subsequent Conservative Government's period in office. That is the first history lesson.
One should consider also the totality of the situation. I do not deny the importance of child benefit, but it is but one part of the total support structure through which the Government seek to help families with children. The Opposition have given me an opportunity, in preparing for this debate to examine detailed records and the facts as between Labour's appalling record and that of the Government in supporting families with children. I refer to published facts that are consistent with the current breakdown, and I remind the House of the true position, based on figures that have not previously been published. The comparison is appalling, and I do not know how the Opposition have the temerity to initiate this debate.
Between 1974–75 and 1978–78, support for families with children dropped in real terms from £7·4 billion to £6·8 billion—a reduction in real terms of 7·3 per cent. One may compare that with the period in which my Government have been in office—[HON. MEMBERS: "Your Government?"] While we have been in office, support has increased—(Interruption.] The Opposition do not like such comparisons being made. The figures show not a decrease, as under socialism, of 7·3 per cent., but an increase in real terms of 25 per cent.

Mr. Robin Cook: I assure the Secretary of State that we are delighted with his comparisons. He reminds the House that in three years the last Labour Government increased child benefit from nothing to £4 per week. As the right hon. Gentleman has seen the calculations, he will be aware that at today's values, that £4 produces a figure of £7·35 per week.
In three years, the Labour Government raised child benefit to £4 per week, but in 10 years the Conservatives have failed to increase that sum by a single penny in real terms. After being in charge of child benefit for 10 years, the Government are still lop behind the level at which we left it after three years.

Mr. Moore: That is utter and complete nonsense. In 61 out of 62 months, Labour's policies of help for families with children and their support structure for tax allowances, family allowances and child benefit produced less than that provided throughout every month of the Conservative Government's subsequent period in office. Labour's record shows not only economic failure but an inability to observe the right priorities in supporting families with children.
I complete my historical survey by reminding the House why child benefit is not automatically indexed, and why I took the decisions that I did this year, in the light of my statutory duty to review child benefit annually. I refer to the Child Benefit Bill's Second Reading debate on 13 May 1975 when Alec Jones, the then Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, said:
The Social Security Act 1975 lays down formal provisions for annual review of benefits paid"—
and that Act established the basis of the benefit that we are now debating, which I make clear for the benefit of those right hon. and hon. Members who are ignorant of that fact. I repeat—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it!"] I shall repeat it, because it is important:

The Social Security Act 1975 lays down formal provisions for annual review of benefits paid under that Act and requires uprating of those benefits in line with earnings or prices as appropriate. We do not propose that there should be anything similar for child benefit because it is a totally different kind of benefit, fulfilling a different purpose.
In the first place it is a new kind of benefit"—

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the start of the debate Mr. Speaker urged everyone, including the Government Front Bench, to be brief. Would it not be appropriate if the Minister at least moves on to the record of the present Government—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. If there were fewer interruptions, the Minister might make progress.

Mr. Moore: The Opposition do not like being reminded of the basis of the statutory duty under which I act. I repeat the words of Alec Jones:
In the first place, it is a new kind of benefit—a hybrid which amalgamates a social security benefit with a tax allowance. In the second place, most of the people receiving it will be people at work, and the benefit will simply form a tax-free addition to their earned income …It will be raised from time to time in the light of inflation and other developments. But just as neither family allowances nor child tax allowances are subject to the rigid pattern of upratings that has been evolved for social security benefits nor will their successor benefit be." — [Official Report, 13 May 1975: Vol. 892, c. 400–401.]
That is the basis on which I seek to carry out my statutory duty.
In the Bill's Second Reading debate on 7 July 1975, Mrs. Castle said:
There is a difference between routine national insurance benefits and this new benefit. Indexation of the child benefit is inappropriate. National insurance benefits are major means of support when earning capacity is interrupted, but the child benefit is a tax-free supplement to families whose major source of income is earnings. Clearly maintenance benefits must be capable of moving automatically in line with changes in the cost of living. The child benefit is in a different category… A statutory duty is placed on the Secretary of State to examine the rate in the light of the overall social and economic policies." — [Official Report, 7 July 1975: Vol. 895, c. 238.]
That is the statutory basis on which every subsequent Secretary of State has decided each year what he ought or ought not to do with child benefit. That basis has remained unchanged.
It is in that context that the review took place. I shall explain to the House why I exercised my statutory duty in the way that I did. First, I sought to exercise it in the context of the present Government's economic success. That success has provided for greater priority than that given by previous Labour Governments to expenditure on social security. We now spend a larger percentage of our nation's gross national product on social security.
As I have illustrated with detailed figures, we have given a higher priority to expenditure on families with children: we have raised it by 25 per cent., in contrast to a Socialist reduction of 7·3 per cent. We need to understand—I know that Opposition Members do not understand it, but I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends do—that that success comes from prudent economic policies. This relates to the point raised earlier by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars).
We must be cautious with growing budgets. Let me remind the House of the context in which our debate takes


place. In 1989–90, the Government propose to spend £51·1 billion on my budgetary responsibilities-an increase of £3·5 billion, well in excess of the £2 billion in the uprating. The amount would, of course, have been considerably more had it not been for a happy reduction in unemployment. I will not put such economic success in jeopardy.
We must also look at the new structure of benefits that has been in place since the spring of 1988. Both family credit and the income support arrangements create a new structure of family premiums. That does two things. First, it gives any Minister in my position an opportunity to try to target additional resources more effectively—as we were able to do in the spring of last year with the extra £200 million for both income support and family credit, as well as another £70 million next April. We are thus able to reach the 1·6 million families, and the 3 million children, who would not benefit from the simple uprating of child benefit because of the way in which their benefit is offset.
Moreover—this is in no way to deny many of the obvious advantages of child benefit—the new arrangements highlight some of the dilemmas surrounding child benefit's poor targeting. Conservative Members have pointed out many times in the past that 70 per cent. of the families who stand to gain from child benefit have incomes above average earnings. Of the £4·5 billion that we spend on child benefit, £1 billion goes to the 1·25 million families who are earning over £20,000.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Is the Secretary of State seriously suggesting that lack of sufficient tageting—as he sees it—through the mechanisms of child benefit is causing more child poverty than lack of effective take-up in the family credit system that he has introduced?

Mr. Moore: I know that the hon. Gentleman is serious about this. But I am trying to illustrate the factors behind any Secretary of State's statutory judgment in relation to the combined package that we are now able to target, without ignoring the large sums that we are still rightly putting into child benefit.
I cannot ignore my statutory duty; indeed, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) rightly said in an earlier debate, I must not ignore it. I must be aware of what is happening in the rest of the economy—what is happening to earning and taxes. I must recognise that 80 per cent. of those in receipt of child benefit are taxpayers, and that the real take-home pay of a married man on average earnings with two children has risen by 29 per cent. under the present Government. I shall not contrast that with the 1 per cent. rise in real terms under the Labour Government.
Let me illustrate the impact of my decisions in the past year, when I took my earlier decision—as opposed to the decisions in the uprating statement. Average gross male earnings to April 1988—and we should remember that over 70 per cent. of potential recipients of child benefit earn more than the average—rose by 9·7 per cent. If the tax changes made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor are taken into account, the figure becomes 11·6 per cent. That means another £18·86 a week net in wage packets, rather than people not receiving 30p a week extra on child benefit. We are still talking about half the overall spending on families with children.
I have covered the previous year; what about the earnings for the year that we are in now? I cannot anticipate the judgments that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will make in his 1989 Budget, but if we use the published assumptions on earnings based on those in the Government Actuary's Department it seems that the increase in average gross male earnings will again be more than £18 a week. Given that, are the Opposition seriously arguing that the living standards of families with above average earnings will be threatened if child benefit is riot increased by 45p?
I remind the House that child benefit has never been intended to cover the whole cost of bringing up a family. There are strong arguments, with which I agree, for preventing basic income maintenance benefits from losing their value against prices: people are genuinely dependent on them to meet their basic needs. But Governments of both complexions—I stress the word Governments—have accepted that different considerations apply to child benefit. It is a supplement to the major source of income —for most people, earnings from work—and each decision about its level must take account not only of changes in the cost of living but of the massive increase in prosperity for families generally in recent years.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The one issue that my right hon. Friend does not seem to be addressing —perhaps he intends to address it later—is the fact that child benefit goes to the mother. That, surely, is an important consideration.

Mr. Moore: I entirely agree. That is why I have tried to stress that we are talking not about the abolition of child benefit, but about its non-indexation this year. We are talking about the expenditure of £4·5 billion. I also remind my hon. Friend, who I know is very interested in these matters, that family credit also statutorily goes to the mother.

Mr. Timothy Raison: My right hon. Friend has stressed the importance of looking at current circumstances when making a decision. Does he accept that it is a current circumstance that the number of people who pay income tax is much too large and that the tax threshold is much too low? That in itself is surely a compelling reason for raising child benefit.

Mr. Moore: My right hon. Friend draws attention to points with which I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be concerned, and I in turn shall draw them to his attention when he comes to make his Budget judgment.

Mr. John Battle: rose—

Mr. Moore: No, I really must proceed.
These, then, are the reasons for my decision on the level of child benefit for this year: first, our commitment to spend taxpayers' money in ways that can be fully justified; secondly, our creation in the new income-related benefits of a better mechanism than ever before for directing additional resources to those who really need them, and, thirdly, our recognition that working families generally are benefiting enormously from the increased prosperity brought about by the Government's prudent management of the economy.
I have a statutory commitment to conduct a careful review of the level of child benefit each year. I have not


shirked that responsibility, nor will I shirk it. However, we also have a binding electoral commitment to ensure that child benefit will continue in its present form. That manifesto pledge has been and will be honoured to the full. What do the Opposition offer in return? They talk about child benefit being uprated automatically, but in office they insisted that that could not be justified. They talk about increasing resources for child support, but in office they crippled the economy and were forced to cut support for families with children. Worst of all, they talk about helping those in need, but they want us to increase child benefit, which would do nothing for the neediest and would give most help to the better-off.
It would be charitable to describe the Opposition's thinking as hopelessly muddled, but if such persistent wrong-headedness is Socialism, it is a Socialism that carries irresponsibility to the point of immorality. The present Government are succeeding where the Opposition failed in promoting an economy that is delivering a higher level of child support than when we came to office, and in directing those resources to the families who need them most. The Opposition have the effrontery to carp at that. I invite the House to join me in welcoming it.

Mr. Frank Field: I want to draw a lesson from what my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, to make an observation on what the Secretary of State has just said and to end with a challenge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston drew attention to the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) at the Child Poverty Action Group's annual general meeting and to the lesson that the right hon. Gentleman drew from the Labour Government's stewardship when child benefit was introduced. He said that the Labour Government made an error when they called the benefit child benefit instead of calling it a tax allowance. That was a good debating point to make here, and no doubt it was a good debating point to make at the Child Poverty Action Group's annual general meeting. However, that is not the real lesson that has to be drawn from the Labour Government's stewardship.
Labour Back Benchers, together with Conservative Members, tabled amendments to have child benefit indexed. Labour Members were assured by their Whips and by Government Ministers that there was no need to press the amendments. Now we see the folly of accepting that advice. I make that point not because I wish any hon. Member to appear in sackcloth and ashes during today's debate—I am too cynical to expect that—but because I wish to lay down a challenge to Conservative Members.
Most of us will not achieve office. Most of us will exert our influence as Back Benchers. Influence can be exerted now and again. It cannot be exerted constantly. Influence can be exerted tonight in the Division Lobby. Influence can also be exerted by means of amendments that are to be moved in Committee during consideration of the Social Security Bill. I ask Conservative Members not to go down the road that Labour Members went when child benefit was introduced and accept the gentle assurances of Government Ministers and the Whips'. I am sure that the intention is noble, but its delivery is feeble.
We have some power tonight, and we shall have some power later this Session. I hope that Conservative Members will exercise their influence as Back Benchers. I hope that they will accept that it is an illusion to think that most of us will achieve office, let alone high office. We are sent here to represent our constituents as Back Benchers and to vote accordingly. That is the lesson that I have drawn from the introduction of the child benefit scheme.
I was lost, as I expect other hon. Members were lost, when the Secretary of State read out reams of figures. I am sure that he meant us to be lost. The figures sounded very good, and I do not doubt for a moment that they were correct, but what was missing was a comparison between families with children and taxpayers without children.
Although it may be difficult for Opposition Members to accept, there has been a substantial increase in living standards, not since 1979—in their first two years of office, the Government achieved the extraordinary distinction of reducing national income—but since 1981. Therefore, it is not hard for Ministers to give figures showing how the living standards of families with children have increased, but the crucial point is how their increase in living standards compares with that of other groups. Despite all the Secretary of State's figures, that comparison did not feature in his speech, for one simple reason: that a comparison of families with children and other taxpayers shows that the rise in living standards of those who are responsible for the next generation has been much lower than that of taxpayers without children or of taxpayers who are single.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: My hon. Friend says that the majority of people now enjoy a better standard of living. Is it not true, however, that those who depend on child benefit now have a worse standard of living than they had in 1979?

Mr. Field: My point is that many of those who depend on child benefit have not done as well as other people. One reason why the Conservative party wins elections and the Labour party does not is that, although many of our constituents have had a rough deal, the majority of the population have not. That is the starting point for many of our debates. Until we take that point on board, we cannot make the point that the relative standards of living of families with children—whether they be rich or poor—have declined, compared with those of the childless or single. Our charge against the Government is that, almost by accident, they are creating a tax and social security system that discriminates against those who are responsible for bringing up the next generation.
Before the last election, the Prime Minister gave an interview to, I think, "Woman's Own", in which she said that she did not accept that there was anything called "the community". I ask Conservative Members to consider where this Governement's policy is leading the Tory party. Without recognising it, the Government are failing to distinguish between taxpayers with children and taxpayers without children, with the result that there is no distinction between the state, at the very top, and ordinary individuals at the bottom.
We have got rid of voluntary organisations—of a network of countervailing forces. Although the Government are strong in rhetoric about the family, they are weak on delivery, and the tax and benefits system is now beginning to work against those with children. There


is nothing between the top, which is the state, and the bottom—autonomous individuals. The Government have not consciously pursued that policy, but that will be its result. That is another reason why Conservative Members should be cautious before they rally too quickly to the flag and support the Government's amendment.
I end with a challenge. The Opposition are running a high-risk strategy, and I support it 100 per cent. The strategy involves holding this debate and supporting amendments that are to he moved in Committee during consideration of the Social Security Bill, asking Parliament to approve a regular uprating of child benefit. Let us suppose that, on this occasion, Conservative Members do not rally to the flag and that later in the Session there is a miserable response from Conservative Members on this issue. That message will be read clearly by those who sit on the Treasury Bench.
If our strategy fails—it is not, perhaps, so important tonight; it will be much more important when the amendments that are made in Committee to the Social Security Bill are debated here on Report—and we see that a large number of Conservative Members are not willing to vote for child benefit against the advice of their Whips, both we on this side of the House, supporters of child benefit on that side of the House and groups outside the House will have to consider what we must do if we are to defend and promote the interests of families with children. Shall we continue to be voted down in debates such as this and when amendments to every Social Security Bill are tabled, or shall we take the debate into enemy territory? That is not a point that I wish to pursue tonight, but that is the inevitable outcome of a high-risk strategy—one which I support, but one which I believe none of us should duck if it misfires.

Sir Ian Gilmour: The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) pressed Conservative Members to vote with him this evening. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) gave us some deeply felt advice on the same matter. I shall respond later to those invitations. First, however, I shall deal briefly with the merits of the case.
The Government's decision not to uprate child benefit is shameful. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a very good case, in party political terms—the best that could possibly be made. However, his case must be pretty bad if he has to rely on Lady Castle for support —particularly as, if I am right, he opposed Lady Castle at the time, which makes her even less of a prop for his argument. To have failed to uprate child benefit two years running is to give oneself, to say the least, a most unenviable record.
It is shameful not to have uprated child benefit in a year when tax benefit was showered on the rich. I also believe that it undoubtedly fiddles an election pledge. It has hit some of the least well-off people and it appears to have been done—my right hon. Friend will obviously not agree with this—not on the merits of the case but in pursuit of some obsessive dogma of curbing so-called public expenditure.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about what was being done to target more money to the least well-off. I would describe it as fairly good news that a third of the money that is illegitimately being saved on child benefit

will be channelled to means-tested benefits, but as the Secretary of State knows—and as the Minister for Social Security in a previous debate implied—means-tested benefits are not in any way a substitute for child benefit. We need both universal and means-tested benefits—what has been described as "a judicious mixture."
Means-tested benefits can never be a substitute because, while the figures that my right hon. Friend gave were reasonably encouraging, family credit will not reach a great many people; the forms that they must fill in are too complicated, people will not understand them and what is proposed cannot be achieved. So means-tested benefit cannot be a substitute for the great universality of child benefit, which is its most important advantage.
I used the phrase "so-called" public expenditure. Figures that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave me last year showed that 70 per cent. of the £4·7 billion expended on child benefit went to people who paid more in income tax than they received in child benefit. In other words, for those people, child benefit was a tax allowance. That is why it should be called a child allowance or child credit, and it should not come out of my right hon. Friend's social security budget.
In connection with the 70 per cent. of people who pay more income tax than they gain in child benefit, I should comment on the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who wanted to be here but who has unfortunately been called away.
It is extraordinary that some of my hon. Friends should worry about child benefit going to the rich when they do not worry about greater tax cuts going to the rich. 'They do not worry, either, about mortgage tax allowances—far more of which go to the rich—or about superannuation tax going to that section of the community. They do not worry about far greater sums going to the rich, yet they get het up about £7·35 going to each child of the Duchess of Westminster. That is illogical and inexcusable, and such arguments will not wash.
What about the 30 per cent. of the people who get more in child benefit than they pay in income tax? For them it is a genuine cash benefit of an old-fashioned kind and is valuable to them. Would my right hon. Friend say which he is more proud of doing—cutting tax allowances for the 70 per cent. or cutting the cash benefit for the 30 per cent.? Neither seems to be a battle honour which anyone would wish to seek.
I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's speech and I was pleased with what he said about the Government's record. But his comments did not answer the hon. Member for Birkenhead, who said that the Government were discriminating against families with children. There is no argument why other tax allowances should go up while this one goes down.
My answer to the invitation from the hon. Member for Livingston to vote with him is that the Opposition motion could not have made it easier for hon. Members on these Benches who favour child benefit. It is well worded and in a perfect world I have no doubt that droves of Conservative Members would vote for it— [Interruption.] —although some of the more reactionary of them probably would not. In that perfect world we would vote purely on the words of the motion, which would create a nightmare for the Whips and probably make them redundant. Indeed, such a course might have even more important disadvantages.
But we do not live in a perfect world. We have party affiliations and so on, and they sometimes put constraints on us in the Division Lobby. I am far from thinking that one should be slavish in obeying the Whips and behaving like a party automaton, even on Labour Supply Days, which are more matters of demonstration than decision-making occasions.
I imagine that, if some new issue cropped up—this has probably happened to me in the past up—I might vote with the Opposition on a Labour Supply Day. But this, alas, is not a new issue because this is not the Government's first offence. They are now hardened offenders in these matters. This has become a long-running saga. This is not an issue on which we need to demonstrate, because people know where we stand. When the Bill returns on Report, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and I and other of my hon. Friends will, I hope, table an amendment which will be in order, and on that occasion I shall vote for that amendment.
Clearly, one could not possibly vote against the Opposition motion, because it is totally unexceptionable. Equally, it would be extraordinarily difficult to vote for the Government amendment, which seems to be a threadbare piece of pathetic prevarication. I certainly could not vote for it.
The Government's action is deeply regrettable. In taking it, they have lost the high ethical ground of politics. They have forfeited any claim to be the party of the family up—surely an expensive price to pay for a rather trivial piece of dogma.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am sure I speak for all Opposition Members and, I hope, for at least several Conservative Members when I say that it was a great pleasure to listen to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). Moving from the higher ethical considerations to which he referred to the lower form of practical survival which tends to dominate considerations in my party, I shall have no difficulty in voting for the Labour motion at the conclusion of the debate.
I share the reaction of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham to the speech of the Secretary of State. Although Hansard may prove me wrong, by my count the right hon. Gentleman referred on no fewer than double-figure occasions to the way in which statutory obligations had obliged him to behave in the way he has on this occasion towards child benefit.
The Secretary of State pointed out at the Tory party conference last autumn that his was still the biggest spending Department of the Government. For such a Minister, commanding that degree of resource and decision-making effect, to refer half-heartedly, if not shamefacedly, to the way in which statutory obligations had boxed him into making a decision in this case, it must be evidence that he recognises that the strength of argument, moral and political, is not with him.
When giving figures, the Secretary of State went back sufficiently far in history to refer to dates when my mother

was receiving child benefit for me. He erected legislative complexity to cover his ministerial complicity in this matter.
It is worth rehearsing the principles under which the scheme was supposed to operate. Child benefit was based on equity, in terms of being a tax allowance. Some Right-wing thinkers in Britain today refer to families having children as another example of consumer choice. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead explained, there is more to it than that. Children are an investment for the future for any nation and there must be a recognition by the nation that the burden of income must reflect the burden of social responsibility. In the longer term, the burden of social responsibility must be adjudged as resting emphatically with those who bring up the next generation. It is not enough to view the arguments about child benefit and the economic status which should be attached to children in terms of the distribution of wealth to families as falling somewhere between the decision to buy a Porsche or a compact disc player. To use the tone of the concluding remarks of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, decisions about child benefit are more ethical than that.
Much of the complex financial argument which the Secretary of State used ignores the founding principle that the purpose of child benefit was not necessarily in the first instance to target resources on the poor. He is hitting at a target which was never erected as the practical symbol of the benefit. The purpose of the benefit was to target resources on families with dependent children. Therefore, much of the Aunt Sally which the Secretary of State erects simply to knock down to justify his position is not the Aunt Sally that was erected in the first place by hon. Members of all political persuasions who supported the benefit in principle when it was first introduced.
Child benefit is, comparatively speaking in the social security system, cheap to administer, and it has a very high take-up rate. According to the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the 60 per cent. or more of people who, for whatever reasons, are not taking up family credit to which they are entitled rely particularly on the automatic nature of child benefit support. Child benefit lifts low-income families out of means-tested benefits. The Government are supposedly committed to the family and to lifting people out of this dreadful, diseased and debilitating dependency culture against which we hear so much Right-wing rhetoric. Yet the freezing of child benefit for consecutive years runs counter to the principles on which it was founded and the principles on which the Government's policy is supposed to be founded and promulgated.
We also hear much about other aspects of social provision in this country up—for example, health, education, social security and social services. We are told that we should look increasingly to the United States of America to see what the great enterprise culture is doing and, to some extent, apply any lessons which can be learned by adapting them to the British context.
America relies heavily on a means-tested benefit called aid to families with dependent children which is intended to help poor families. Studies have shown that, between 1973 and 1984, the income of families with children declined in real terms, particularly for low-income families, but also across the entire income range. In 1985 a report from the Congressional Budget Office stated that households with children account for more than two thirds


of all poor people in the United States, even though the proportion of children in the population had declined over the past 20 years. As the American experience is so often alluded to and attempts are made to incorporate that experience into the Government's processes, it is interesting to note that many American politicians are now arguing that they should introduce the equivalent of child benefit, which they refer to as family allowance.
Senator Moynihan has said that, among the major democracies, America is the only country without a child benefit. He said that some people might call aid to families with dependent children a family allowance, but it was typically paid to broken families. He said:
Why not a family allowance to support the traditional family and help hold it together?
That is the kind of sentiment that hopefully we would associate with all political parties and a sentiment which the Conservative party more than most would hitherto have sought to make its own. The fact that it can now be cited against the Government from the other side of the Atlantic is further evidence of the distance that the Government have placed between the rhetoric of what they claim to be upholding in terms of social values and the reality of the effect that their policies are having on social cohesion and the family unit.
I support the motion so ably proposed by the hon. Member for Livingston. By freezing child benefit, the Government will reduce the value of the band of tax-free income given by child benefit and therefore increase taxation on all families with children. Freezing child benefit will increasingly each year limit help given to families on modest incomes to whom the benefit is particularly important. The freezing will have a particularly severe effect on large families and it will offer less and less help to those experiencing family, domestic or economic crises. It will force more families into dependence on means-tested benefits and it will increasingly weaken the springboard from which the unemployed can move into independence. In short, it will intensify the poverty trap. For two years, successive Secretaries of State told us that those effects were the entire purpose of the social security reviews and the purpose of changing the social security system.
In the Green Paper "Reform of Social Security" published in June 1985 before the hearings, the consultation and the reforming legislation, the Government stated:
The Government accept the case for continuing the system of child benefit. It is right that families with children at all income levels should receive some recognition for the additional costs of bringing up children and that the tax benefit system should allow for some general redistribution of resources from those without children to those who have responsibility for caring for them.
That principle and pledge has been thrown to the wind. The Conservative party—the party of the family—is now rightly viewed, whatever the result of the Division tonight, by the people of this country as the party that has manifestly and miserably failed the family.

Mrs. Marion Roe: Contrary to the suggestions of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), the Conservative party and the Government have always been wholeheartedly committed

to the family. We believe that the family is the basic unit of society and the key to social cohesiveness and happiness.
The policy on which the Labour party fought and lost the last election was indicative of its attitude towards the family and to economic policy in general. At that time. the Labour party argued for across-the-board increases in child benefit which would have cost nearly £3·5 billion. Instead of directing resources to families that really needed help, the Labour party wanted to tax everyone to subsidise every parent, whatever their level of income.
The Labour party's extravagant plans, had they been funded from increases in taxation, would have added 2·5p to the basic rate of income tax. That would have added £5 to the weekly tax bill of the average manual worker, robbing millions of ordinary working families of what was rightfully theirs, eroding incentives to work and stifling enterprise.
In pursuit of higher levels of child benefit, the Labour party seems to be oblivious to the violence that its proposals might do to other parts of the economy. The Labour party has learned precious little from its election trouncing. Its so-called review document "Social justice and economic efficiency" reaffirms Labour's commitment to increasing resources for child benefit whatever the indiscriminate effects and the costs to the taxpayer. It is instructive to note that under the Labour party's proposals for boosting child benefit, 40 per cent. of the beneficiaries, or 2·5 million families, would have gross incomes of more than £15,000 a year. Extraordinarily, 20 per cent. of families benefiting from increases in child benefit would have a gross income of more than £20,000 a year. Perhaps I should remind the Opposition that their deputy leader, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), described such individuals as the "bloody rich". He said that in Tribune on 10 May 1985.
The thought of the Labour party putting an extra 2·5p on the basic rate of income tax paid by working families throughout the country to raise the level of child benefit, 20 per cent. of which apparently goes to the "bloody rich", is rich in irony. The Labour party considers itself to be firmly opposed to taxing everyone to subsidise the rich. If only its policies matched its principles. Nor do I support the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour).
There is a more fundamental issue at stake. The Labour party continues to subscribe to the collectivist nostrum that the only way to raise the living standards of families on lower incomes is to give them more Government handouts. I believe that the best way to help those in need is to create conditions in which the economy can thrive, thereby ensuring that living standards and public services improve.
The last Labour Government pushed the standard rate of income tax up to 35p in the pound and the top rate to 83p in the pound, all in the name of what Opposition Members like to call social justice. The results were absolutely disastrous. A couple with two children living on just half average earnings saw their real take-home pay rise by just over 4 per cent. in the five years to 1978–79. The take-home pay of families on average earnings or above hardly rose in real terms, and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out, in many cases it actually fell. High taxes wrecked the performance of the economy and failed miserably to deliver a massive increase in benefit levels as would have befitted Labour's


supposedly egalitarian strategy. Despite the fact that the basic rate of income tax was one third higher under the last Labour Government, for almost the whole time Labour was in office, the real value of child benefit to families on average earnings was far below what it has been under this Government.

Mr. Alan Meale: I was interested to hear what the hon. Lady said about the Labour party's view that handouts to the poor are the only solution. Does she not consider that the Chancellor's most recent Budget, which consisted largely of a major redistribution of wealth and major handouts to a minority of very rich people in society, was a similar exercise in the opposite direction by the Conservative Government?

Mrs. Roe: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as a result of the tax cuts, the revenue from taxation has enabled the Government to target more money to those in need.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Roe: No. I should like to continue and to enable more hon. Members to participate in the debate.
The plain truth is that the last Labour Government's much-vaunted "caring" strategy failed on both counts. It failed to deliver economic success, leaving living standards stagnant or falling for millions of families, and it failed to deliver the big increases in benefit levels that Labour has always claimed are necessary. That was Labour's "family" policy.
On the basis of what we know about its current policies, today's Labour party is just as keen to repeat in the 1990s its failures of the past decade. By contrast, the Government's policies have gone to the very heart of the problems that Labour failed to tackle in the 1970s. Today we are enjoying our eighth year of steady economic growth, the longest period of sustained growth since the war.
Growth on that scale has lifted living standards and benefits to the needy to record levels. Since 1979, a married couple on half average earnings and with two children have seen their take-home pay increase by 23 per cent. in real terms. Families on all levels of the earnings scale have seen big increases in their living standards under the Conservative Government. It is no wonder that more families than ever own their homes, can buy shares and are taking foreign holidays. The plain truth is that the best family policy is one which creates a prosperous, dynamic economy in which living standards are rising rapidly. Thanks to the buoyancy of tax revenues, the Government have been able to target more help than ever to the families who need it most.
Anyone with a modicum of common sense knows that a large proportion of any increase in child benefit goes to the families that have benefited most from our policies of cutting income tax rates and raising personal allowances. Moreover, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has mentioned, the poorest families on income support would gain nothing at all from an increase in child benefit, and neither would those claiming family credit. Using increases in child benefit to raise the standard of living in the most needy families is about as cost-effective as using a cruise missile to dislodge a coconut in a shy.
The Government have shown their commitment to helping poorer families through the generous funding of family credit. Family credit is particularly valuable because it offers families with children a helping hand out of dependency and into the world of work. It is also an effective way of tackling the poverty and unemployment traps because it extends a relatively long way up the income scales. A person earning £9,300 a year with two children aged 12 and 14 will still be eligible for family credit next year. I understand that at the end of last year the Department of Social Security had received almost 500,000 claims for family credit and had made some 300,000 awards. That is a promising start, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will assure the House that no effort will be spared in bringing the scheme to the attention of more families. Family credit is an excellent way of helping needy families; it deserves the widest possible publicity.
The 1970s proved decisively that Socialist policies of intervention, planning and redistribution are utterly incapable of delivering the improved public services and rising living standards on which the quality of life in ordinary families so crucially depends. By contrast, the 1980s has been a decade of increasing prosperity and choice for families on all levels of the earnings scale.

Mr. John McFall: Child benefit is currently £7·25 per week. To maintain its present value, it should be £7·70 and to make good the April 1988 freeze it should be £8. Taking into account compensation for the lack of a real rise in November 1985 it should be £8·35; that is more than £1 a week more than it is now. The undeniable consequence of this situation is that it will increase the poverty trap and tilt the balance away from the carer.
The question in our minds tonight is why do the Government retain child benefit? Is it simply because they do not have the moral courage to admit that they are abandoning it? But to be charitable, we will investigate some of the areas in which the Government might have a good case. Let us consider economic, social, political and ideological factors. The economic factors have been well rehearsed by the Government and by the Opposition.
There is a £5 billion Budget surplus. The Government's public expenditure target has been achieved—so much so that they are now paying back part of the national debt. From the Government's point of view there is a sound economy, yet they are not increasing child benefit, and that has dire consequences for families.
The Government like to remind us that they are a tax-cutting Government. That is perverse. Since 1978, the tax burden of the average person has increased. The latest figures given by the Government in the past few weeks show that the tax burden for a married man with two children, on average earnings of £254 a week, has gone up from 35·1 per cent. to 37·3 per cent. The message to be gained is that the poverty that we see today is tax-induced, and the Government have taken no notice of that.
We are now dealing with the consequences of the Social Security Act 1986, the most fundamental reappraisal, we were told, since Beveridge and one that will keep us on course for the next 40 years as Beveridge had done for the past 40 years. Sad to say, the Social Security Act is a disaster for family policy. Only last year, by an


amendment to the Act, the Government denied 220,000 —almost a quarter of a million—mothers and children entitlement to welfare food and free milk. The consequences of that are to be seen in my constituency. A few weeks ago, I wrote to the director of education. He informed me that from August to December this year there had been a reduction in the number of children taking free meals. The figure was 8,600 a year ago, and it is now about 6,000. That is a reduction of about 25 to 30 per cent.
Does that match what we see day in and day out in our constituencies and our surgeries? Since April, we have dealt with the unremitting consequences of the 1986 Act. Week by week we have witnessed the qualitative degeneration of life. Tensions, crises of conscience, and heartaches have been caused by a lack of economic freedom. That is what mothers tell us in our surgeries week in and week out.
Appeals have been made to Tory Back Benchers. Surely they must be hearing about the same problems. They owe a duty to their consciences and to their constituents to refer such problems to the Government Front Bench. I shall be charitable—at least some of them must know what is going on in the real world, even though they do not live in it. These things are happening every week. Each time child benefit is frozen, more families go into family credit. That has political consequences.
The Government tell us that the Social Security Act 1986 is a targeting measure. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) mentioned the word "targeting" with pride. What does targeting mean? It is a nice description that gives the impression that benefits go to the right people. That is not the case. Targeting increases means-tested benefits. It does not hit the target. It destroys self-reliance and self-esteem and, more important politically, it increases dependency.
Let us leave the social, ethical and moral aspects aside and consider the reality. Forty years ago, a couple with two children paid no net income tax unless the father earned the equivalent in 1988 prices of £250 a week. Today, an individual pays more in tax than he receives in child benefit when his earnings reach £137 a week. To underline the dependency argument, I refer hon. Members to the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 28 July 1988. The Minister said:
After the addition of benefits, the net income of a hypothetical married couple with four dependent children…paying average rent and local authority rates, would be £123·25 at gross weekly earnings of £75…Prior to the reform of social security net income at £75 gross earnings would have been about £127.—[Official Report, 28 July 1988; Vol. 1459, c. 509.]
If that individual's wage is more than doubled from £75 a week to £165, he will receive only £17 a week more. That says everything about the Government's Social Security Act 1986 and about targeting. There is no conclusion other than that targeting increases means testing.
The latest figures for 1985 show that 4 million people and families are living on the poverty line. That is double the 1979 figure. Also, 2·25 million children are in poverty. That is nearly double the 1979 figure. We get that information from the low-income statistics that the Government are wilfully stopping from now on, because they do not want people to know the real situation.
Therefore, one examines an aspect of the Government's ideology and says, "If they are freezing child benefit and putting more on means test as a consequence, why do the

Government go ahead with it? Did the Government know what they were doing?" When the Secretary of State explained it to the Prime Minister and the other members of the Cabinet, was there unanimous support? Was a majority in support? Was it done in the knowledge that the consequences were an increase in means-tested benefits, because it goes against the rhetoric? Or was it done in ignorance? If it was done with full knowledge, the Government are guilty of nothing less than political mendacity. If it was done in ignorance, they should take the opportunity to look again at what they did. Was the Cabinet decision unanimous? Was it taken at full Cabinet level or by a sub-committee of the Cabinet?
By not increasing child benefit the Prime Minister has demonstrated that she is interested only in a small constituency—the top 1 per cent. Individuals such as Sir Ralph Halpern will gain £4,800 a week as a result of the Government's tax cuts£enough to keep 60 families of four individuals on income support. The Prime Minister has gone to Scotland to state her ideology over the past year. She has used the platform of the Church of Scotland to put her case and to tell us to stop moaning and to get on with it. I shall quote selectively from the New Testament, in just the same way as the Prime Minister does. I refer to St. Mark, chapter 10, verses 13 and 14. The disciples were dismayed by the people who brought children to Jesus. He rebuked them and welcomed the young ones, saying
Suffer the little children to come unto me".
That quotation is appropriate. To put that remark in a contemporary context, the Government are echoing the words of the New Testament, but in a perverse manner, by telling young children and their parents to suffer, but to suffer in silence, because the Government are not putting up child benefit. The Government want them to suffer away from the public gaze, because they are too preoccupied with their own narrow constituency. That is the gospel of St. Margaret for the Sir Ralphs of this world. That is the Government's message. By their deeds you shall know them. The Government have made that crystal clear by their de facto abolition of child benefit.

Mr. John Marshall: I have been surprised by Opposition Members' speeches. They have ignored the basic conundrum of our social security system —that, at a time of record spending on social security, some of our fellow citizens live in shameful squalor. The reason for that deplorable state of affairs is simple: the vast bulk of our social security expenditure is non-selective. Surely it is wrong that, for every pound spent on family credit which goes to those in need, £11 should be spent on child benefit which is non-selective. Surely it is a strange state of affairs that £406 million is spent on family credit, but £350 million is spent on child benefit going to taxpayers paying more than the standard rate of income tax.
Last year, Opposition Members wrongly criticised the community charge, saying that it would bear equally on the dustman and the duke. However, tonight they are asking that the dustman and the duke get the same increase in child benefit. They said last year that the Budget tax concessions were unnecessary, but 80 per cent. of those who would benefit from an increase in child benefit are taxpayers. Of those, 500,000 pay tax at the higher rate.
This debate is not about the relief of poverty. Anyone who is concerned about that should merely ask one question: is it better to spend a given sum on family credit, which goes only to the needy, or should that money be spent in uprating child benefit, which goes equally to the scholar at Eton and to the child in a single-parent family? As the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, is it right that, at a time when a large majority of people enjoy far greater prosperity, everyone should be given higher child benefit? Is it right that, for every £1 spent on family credit, £11 is spent on child benefit?
The Opposition's strategy is not to cure poverty in the family, but rather to hanker after a non-selective benefit. At the last general election, the Conservative party made a promise that child benefit would be paid, as now, to the mother. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will come forward at the next election with a different promise—of a root-and-branch reform of child support. The present system is inadequate because it often leads to money being given to parents who do not need it, whereas those in real need and poverty are given an inadequate amount.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I hope that, in talking about root-and-branch reform, my hon. Friend is not suggesting that child benefit should be taken away from the mother.

Mr. Marshall: I love my wife too much to suggest that ladies should have that money taken away from them. I am suggesting that the money should go to those in greatest need rather than to everyone, as it does under the present system. That does not deal with the problem of family poverty, which is an insult to a civilised society. By hankering after a universal solution and giving the same to everyone, the Opposition would guarantee the continuation of poverty. It is only my right hon. Friend's policies that give those in greatest need any hope of escaping from the present trap.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: The Secretary of State is taking us down memory lane. Obviously, he does not live in the real world. Child benefit, which is paid to every mother, is a lifeline for my constituents. I only wish that some Conservative Members would realise what the Tory Cabinet is planning. It intends to take away child benefit, and it is dishonest of the Secretary of State to say otherwise. We know that £203 million has been saved in the past year by freezing child benefit. Where did £133 million go? In improvements in the other means-tested benefits, the Government paid out only about £70 million. The freeze is not intended to help the poor or poor children, but to help the Conservative party. It has helped to fill up the vaults and safes where the Government have put the money they have saved by making cuts over the past 10 years.
The Opposition are especially disgusted and dismayed by the begging-bowl society that is being created. We do not want means-tested benefits, and that is why we favour child benefit. No labels or stigma are attached to child benefit. The benefit is claimed once and then paid until the child becomes an adult. Labour Members know what poverty is like. We live with it every day, and when we look

around us we see children and youngsters who receive no benefit under the system that the Government have introduced.
Denmark has had a change of heart. In July 1987, the Danes opted for a child benefit system because they felt that it was much fairer. They reckon that I million children in some of the poorest families may lose because of a low take-up of family credit. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has made it clear that, in talking about targeting and ill-targeted benefits, the Secretary of State does not favour child benefit. When the Secretary of State made his statement in October 1987, he mentioned that child benefit was ill-targeted, so he believed that it needed to be reviewed and changed.
The Secretary of State also made a statement about family credit, of which he said that there would be a 70 per cent. take-up. He was wrong: there is still only a 54 per cent. take-up for family credit. People on family credit are subjected to snoopers. These snoopers receive memos from the Department of Social Security which clearly state that, when defaulters are taken to court, the snoopers should ensure that the judge reads their diaries and notes, because the people with whom they are dealing are wholly ignorant and inarticulate. If the snoopers need other assistance or resources, they can go to the depot and collect their spying glasses, wellington boots and cameras. That is the society that the Government ask us to accept and those are the memos that are given to snoopers. That shows how much the Government care about the poor. They must change their attitude on child benefit and lift the freeze. They should pay £8.25 a week to bring child benefit up to its proper level.

Mr. David Madel: The Government amendment to the Opposition motion is more an addendum. I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about the additional resources to be provided from April for low-income families with children, although the goal of higher take-up of the new family credit remains a challenge. I am sure that other organisations can help and encourage people to claim family credit, and I am sure that the claim forms could be simplified in due course. It is not easy to obtain benefit nowadays, because benefit offices are vigorously thorough in processing claims and one must not run away with the idea that new or existing benefits are easily claimed.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said about child benefit. I welcome the fact that the Government will keep child benefit and that my right hon. Friend will review it every year, as is his statutory duty. Helping families has always been a major item in the social programme of Conservative Governments. When the Conservative party has been in opposition, helping the family has always been a major plank of its policy at elections. Child benefit is a popular benefit, with virtually 100 per cent. take-up. It plays an important part in strengthening family stabiliy and it is a great reassurance to mothers if family circumstances change abruptly for the worse—as they often do, alas—to know that child benefit is coming through.
A more serious point is that there is widespread evidence of the extent to which the divorce and separation rate has increased. It is increasing in all parts of the


country, regardless of whether unemployment is increasing or decreasing. It is a great reassurance to mothers in personal difficulties, which are unsettling, to know that one easily claimable child benefit will continue to be paid to them without any bureaucratic hassle. Within this general background of increasing family break-ups and tensions, it is surely not in the national interest that child benefit should fade away because of inflation.
Much has been said and written about targeting, and one should say right at the outset that, if the target of child benefit is to help mothers and their families, that target has been reached effectively. We must accept that it is not possible to have absolute precision in all benefits and, although one entirely accepts that some social security benefits must be means-tested, there is a danger in taking the theoretical argument too far. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security who, alas, is not in his place will recall the late Iain Macleod's advice to the Conservative party: when getting on a train to the land of political theory, it is important to get off before it hits the buffers.
I should like to give two examples of universal benefits that are claimed almost 100 per cent., although there could be a theoretical argument for having some selectivity for them. The personal tax allowance and the married man's tax allowance are claimed almost 100 per cent., although one could argue that, because of today's high earnings, there should be some selectivity. Subsidised school meals are claimed in many areas of the country; that is, where local education authorities provide them. However, it could be argued that children from better-off families should not enjoy the advantage of subsidised school meals. Any attempt to change the universality of those two provisions—subsidised school meals in particular—would cause uproar and would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
From the practical point of view, trying to tie a graduated system of child benefit to the mother's earnings would be another tax and bureaucratic nightmare. Apart from anything else, it would completely contradict the Government's policy, which has been successful and welcome, of creating a sharp growth in the number of self-employed women for whom earnings fluctuate sharply from year to year. Changing to some form of graduated system would run clean contrary to the Government's general economic policy of encouraging more women into part-time work, which is vital to sustain economic growth. As we have fewer and fewer school leavers and as we get nearer to 1992, the part-time work of women will be vital for us in meeting the challenge of 1992 and the economic benefits that that will create.
The economic benefits of having more women in part-time work could easily pay for the cost of unfreezing child benefit. My examples show that, although targeting child benefit is theoretically interesting, practically speaking, it is hopeless.
In 48 hours, Mr. Bush will be inaugurated as the 41st president of the United States of America, having been swept to power partly for saying that he wanted to create a gentler and kinder America. By building on the social security changes of the 1970–74 Conservative Government and by extending and developing those changes, the Government have done much to create a gentler and kinder Britain, but we would make faster progress in that direction if child benefit were unfrozen.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to speak in favour of increasing child benefit in line with other benefits. I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) and hope that many Conservative Members will have the courage of their convictions and vote for the motion and against the amendment.
It is an indisputable fact that child benefit is being constantly eroded by inflation and that £7·25 does not go very far as an income supplement. In many areas more than half of that £7·25 would be needed just to pay for school meals.
I well remember when I was bringing up only one child the nightmare of paying just for footwear. I was a part-time teacher and my husband was a printer so we had quite a good income, but so that my son could take full advantage of his school curriculum, he needed a pair of ordinary shoes, a pair of plimsolls, wellington boots, football boots, tennis shoes, and climbing shoes and he grew out of all of them every few months and they had to be replaced.
The other day the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security recommended that pensioners buy second-hand clothes at jumble sales. I hope that no one will advocate buying second-hand shoes for children. Unfortunately, parents often have to do so and, as a result, their children's feet are ruined. Even if they have reasonable earnings parents need a much bigger supplement to their income—much more than £7·25 per week per child.
Women note that, although the Government are so grudging about child benefit, they always seem to find the money for military spending, for example, £1 billion for modernising tanks. If one asked most of the women in this country, they would say that they wanted more money for life, not for death.
As has already been said, child poverty is rising. The Child Poverty Action Group has shown that more than one in five children are in families living below the poverty line.
The universality of child benefit is important. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said that the benefit should be selective and referred to dustmen and dukes. I remind him that we are talking about women, not about dustmen and dukes, as a few lines from a letter referred to in an article in The Independent makes clear. It states:
As a woman with two children who had a husband earning £250 per week who provided us with nothing, the only way we survived was with our child benefit, and that was only because he couldn't get his hands on it.
So much for selective benefit. It is universal benefits that help women and we are talking about women who are trying to take care of their children.
Child benefit is also important as a form of recognition for women. Another woman wrote to The Guardian:
I am a single parent with three young children and. I am dependent on Income Support. As such, I do not benefit financially from Child Benefit because † it is deducted at source from the Income Support I am entitled to. However, I feel at least that the child benefit is my money, that it is my right to receive it, that I would get it regardless of my financial situation, and it makes me feel less dependent on state means-tested benefit.
Perhaps I am foolish but psychologically it is useful. When my youngest child is at full-time nursery or school, I will do my utmost to return to work although it may have to be


part-time employment. Knowing that I will have my Child Benefit to boost my income will be an incentive to return to work."
The woman goes on to say that in the future her taxes will contribute to many kinds of tax relief, including, for example, mortgage interest relief, in which she is not interested. She therefore feels that people without children should in principle have to contribute towards the welfare of people with children because it is the children who are the future of this country.
Child benefit is also an insurance for mothers. Often men walk out and leave their families penniless, but the mother knows that she has the benefit book and that she can therefore at least provide food for her children until she can get more help. As has already been said, the take-up rate of child benefit is good whereas targeted benefits do not always reach their target. Less than half the poor families in this country get all the benefit to which they are entitled either through ignorance, pride, or bureaucratic stumbling blocks. The fact is that targeted benefits do not work as well as universal benefits.
I often talk about harmonisation in Europe and I should like to quote the comparable figures. In Great Britain a mother of three receives approximately £87 a month in child benefit, which is very little recognition for her role as a carer. In West Germany, the benefit is £125; in Luxembourg it is £198, which is more than double what mothers in Great Britain receive; and in France the figure is £257.
I ardently support the motion. Child benefit should be increased in line with other benefits as a start to recognising the value of women's work in bringing up children.

Mr. Robin Squire: Time allows me to make only two or three brief points. We switched to child benefit many years ago, partly because the old child tax allowance could not benefit the poorest.
The poorest are now, by and large, protected, but two specific categories are losing out. The first is the majority of those eligible for family credit, because, as we have heard from the figures given today, only a minority of those are claiming. The second is those paying income tax at the standard rate and earning just about the level of family credit, who received no increase, but many of whom in fairly limited circumstances are looking after children.
I welcome, as I am sure do all hon. Members, the fact that there is a major campaign under way to increase take-up of family credit. However, until the take-up is at least twice the present level it is surely not credible to base our support for families on that system. That simply does not add up. I again urge the Government to reconsider their policy in that respect.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) rightly mentioned that we have a selective amnesia about child benefit as against reductions in taxation. Of course, he is right. However, it goes a little further, because, as he rightly said, we look for a mixture of means-tested and universal benefits. When my right hon. Friend said that, several hon. Members nodded. I nodded and so, too, did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If every time we have a universal benefit we tear it apart by saying that sometimes it will go to

people who earn a little more than others and, therefore, that invalidates it, we will end up with a system that has no universal benefits. It will have only selective benefits, and the poverty and employment traps will be horrendous to behold.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: This has been an interesting debate, and in some respects a strange one. I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said. During the 1983–87 Parliament I became inured to the idea that in the Conservative Government, of which I had previously not had experience, Ministers talk much more of previous Governments' records than their own. However, it is said that hope springs eternal, so I nurtured the illusion that in the Parliament of 1987 and beyond perhaps that phenomenon would cease. Clearly, that was a mistake.
I begin by mentioning something that the Secretary of State said about the Government's record and a point about which he became quite emotional. I believe that he thumped the Dispatch Box, or came as near to doing it as any Secretary of State ever does. He said that he was not prepared to put the economic success of the Government in jeopardy. The clear implication of his remarks was that to increase child benefit at all would mean putting that economic success in jeopardy.
I found that an extraordinary remark for many reasons, but I want specifically to mention two. In the Budget before last, I listened to the Chancellor—it was not long after the decision to freeze child benefit had been announced—telling us in his playful way how he liked to entertain himself in each Budget by abolishing some little obscure tax of which no one had ever heard. He felt that it was a perk that went with the job. He listed two or three minor and capital taxation changes and one or two others, and indicated that the lost revenue to the Treasury from those changes would be between £100 million and £120 million. That was the very sum that he had not been able to spare that year to increase child benefit. Of course, in last year's Budget, as a result of changes to inheritance tax and inheritance tax relief, precisely 2,000 wealthy people benefited instead of 12 million children because those changes cost the same amount that would have been needed to increase child benefit in line with inflation. We can dispense, therefore, with the emotion of the Secretary of State when he tells us that he is not prepared to jeopardise the economic success of the country. If it can be jeopardised for 2,000 already wealthy people, it will not do much harm to give more to 12 million children.
The Government's argument about child benefit now, as opposed to comments made in the past by senior members of the Government, appears to be based on three assumptions. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) laid the first one very ably before us. It appears that the Government, and perhaps some of their Back Benchers, may no longer be committed to financial support specifically for families with children. The Government claim to recognise, nevertheless, the difficulties that withdrawing that support might cause to families on especially low incomes. They further claim that they are dealing effectively with those difficulties and are putting special emphasis on families in low-paid work.
Secondly, the Government appear to have decided to give effect to their apparent decision that child support


should go only to the poorest by switching funds from universal child support through child benefit to pay for the improvements, of which they boast, in help for the poorest families with children.
Thirdly, the Government appear to have decided—this is an important point, which has been mentioned by hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel)—to ignore the evidence, which they and their predecessors have found compelling for at least 10 years, that the overall income being received by a family unit is not necessarily a clear, simple and direct guide to the distribution of that income within that family. I say that the Government have decided to ignore that because I know of no study—the Government have not cited one—that suggests that this is no longer a problem. Indeed, anecdotal evidence continues to roll in, especially from women, suggesting that there is still a problem over the distribution of income within a family. It does not occur only when there is family breakdown; it occurs on a more day-to-day basis. It is crucial that a regular income of a known size should go into the mother's pocket.
The Government's overall approach is not only flawed in theory, but is more than a little dishonest in its execution. We believe that it is strange that this is the only Government in Europe, if not in the developed world, who appear wilfully to give no recognition to the contribution made to society and to the future of all citizens by those who are able to and choose to have children. To abandon the idea of general child support would be an extraordinary and far-reaching decision, but it appears to be one that the Government are considering.
The Government, having apparently decided to renege on the principle of universal support for families with children, are boasting of the extra support that they are giving to such families. A number of Conservative Members who spoke in support of child benefit have, nevertheless, not only welcomed the support that the Government claim to be giving to poorer families, but felt that the Government's case in that respect was to some extent justified. Of course, the Government have used that argument to justify the freezing of child benefit in cash terms—in other words, cutting it in real terms. They say that some of the money—one third on the last occasion—has gone to children in the poorer families, and the Government emphasise that it goes especially to families in low-paid work.
In view of the odd questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was asked earlier, I should make it clear that the Opposition believe that families with low incomes and in low-paid work should receive extra support, but we do not believe that that should be at the expense of other families with children, many of whom may be only slightly better off.
Does the Government's claim that they are giving extra resources to the poorest families stand up to close examination? On more than one occasion we have drawn the House's attention to the fact that the poorest families on income support are worse off than they were in April 1988 because of the net effect of all the Government's changes. They remain worse off in net terms even after the extra money that was released by the freezing of child benefit; at least that money did not go to the Treasury.
In these debates the Government usually concentrate not on the money going to those on income support but on the money that goes to those entitled to family credit. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston and a number of

other hon. Members have dealt with how that principle is cast into doubt by the low take-up of family credit and the fact that that means that many who are losing from the child benefit freeze are not gaining from family credit.
But even families who claim family credit are in many cases not, as the Government seek to imply, better off than they were before the April 1988 changes or before child benefit was frozen. Figures recently released to me in reply to a parliamentary question show that families in the lowest paid work—those who stand to lose on the swings of housing benefit cuts what they gain on the roundabout of family credit—are still, after all the Secretary of State's boasts of increased money, worse off in cash terms, never mind in real terms, than they were before the social security changes in April last year.
The answer to which I refer shows that a family, with two children aged four and six, paying average housing costs is worse off in cash terms at earnings up to £100 a week than it was before April 1988. So, too, is a family with three children, and a single-parent family whether that parent is in full-time or part-time work.
The Minister for Social Security and, in particular, the Secretary of State have said on many occasions how much they dislike people being trapped into dependency. It has been pointed out to him by more than one hon. Member today that freezing child benefit draws thousands more families into dependency on means-tested benefit. The scale of that dependency is shown by the figures that I have just given and by the way that benefit is withdrawn from such families as their income rises.
In the lower category of the cases I have quoted—those whose earnings are between £60 and £100 a week—the net increase in their income will be less than 50p and in some cases as low as 25p a week from a gross increase of £10. Were anybody to be successful—no doubt they would have to change their job—in obtaining the full increase of £40 a week, the net benefit at the end would be the princely sum of £1·37. I shall repeat that for hon. Members who cannot believe their ears. They will be £1·37 better off net as a result of a £40 increase in gross earnings. That is what a tight withdrawal of means-tested benefit means when the Government claim that they want to help only the people in the greatest need.
I repeat that families on incomes of up to £100 a week are worse off in cash terms than they were in April 1988, and that is without taking into account the losses that have resulted from, for example, the withdrawal of free school meals which will make them £5 to £6 a week worse off.
There is one other aspect of those figures to which I want to draw the attention of the House. A number of hon. Members who have spoken in support of the Government—I accept that there have not been many, even, I hasten to add, on the Conservative Benches—have said that they think that the direction of Government policy is right. I am fairly confident that many of those hon. Members do not appreciate how tightly their Government are drawing the net of means-testing.
Let me give one example. Many hon. Members will recall the many occasions on which Ministers at the Dispatch Box have spoken of housing benefit going too far up the income scale. The same figures to which I am referring show that a two-child family in low-paid work loses all entitlement to help with rent or rates when its gross income reaches £90 a week. A family with £90 a week is considered by the Government, in how their income scales work, to be sufficiently well off to need no support


with housing costs. I caution hon. Members who think that it is all right to make theoretical speeches about how there is no harm in concentrating help on those in greatest need to take a much more careful look at precisely what their Government mean by those terms.
I shall save the Minister time and trouble by accepting that the figures that I have given are not necessarily representative because there are variations in housing costs, and so on. But I mention in passing that they at least reflect the position of families who are paying average levels of rent and rates which is more than can be said of the leaflet "Better off in work" published by the Government which uses below average levels of rent and rates, no doubt because they make the figures look rather better. At least the Government figures that I am quoting have the merit of reflecting the position in average circumstances. Again, the figure for average rates is the one that the Government use in setting levels of income support, so presumably they do not consider it inadequate for those purposes.
All in all, there is little doubt that a careful look at the figure shows that, whatever the Government claim, families in the lowest-paid work are not better off because the Government have frozen child benefit. The net effect of the Government's policy means that they are still substantially worse off.
The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) said that by freezing child benefit for the second year running the Government have forfeited their claim to be the party of the family, and I agree wholeheartedly. But I have no doubt that the Government will argue that they have merely rewritten the terms of that claim. I hope that I have been able to show that even in the terms of that rewritten claim the Government still cannot claim to be the party of the family, unless one takes the view of the former Under-Secretary, now the Chief Secretary, who said during the last but one debate on this subject that it did not matter that the Government were not increasing child benefit because they gave the family,moral support. He was not able to quantify that sum on a weekly basis.
If child benefit is frozen to release money for tax cuts, as many hon. Members have said, it is the better-off, not the worse-off, who will get the best of the bargain. Everything in the Government's record suggests that that may be the Government's idea. Many families in low-paid work pay no tax. Many more pay far less in tax than they receive in child benefit. So the balance of advantage so far, in that respect at least, is still with them. That is where the Government claim they want it to remain.
If child benefit were abolished and the money was given to fund a cut in the rate of income tax, every two-child family with an income below £28,000 a year—that leaves out of account any allowance that it may have to offset against a mortgage—would be worse off. I remind Conservative Members that that would include Members of Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston challenged the Secretary of State to justify increasing the universal tax allowance paid to married men by 22 per cent. and cutting child benefit in the same period by 13 per cent. The Secretary of State was so engrossed in his history lesson that he overlooked the reply that I am sure he had to hand.
We now challenge the Minister for Social Security to justify the difference between the treatment of the universal married man's allowance and the universal child benefit.
I was sorry to hear the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham say that he and some of his hon. Friends might not vote with us, but I was pleased to hear that they might do so on another occasion. Nevertheless, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, not only to consider carefully whether that is the right decision, but to take the argument into the enemy camp—if I may so describe his Government—and to seek between now and the next debate on these matters to win over more of their hon. Friends to our side and to their side of the argument. After all, 12 million children are waiting on their answer.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): At the beginning of his speech, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State examined with some care the Labour party's record on child support. It appeared to be an experience not greatly enjoyed by Opposition Members. I can understand their embarrassment, which seems to be reflected in the attendance at this debate on an Opposition day. The bulk of the Labour party seems to have little stomach for an exchange of views and records on this subject.
In a sense, I agree with the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that this has been a strange debate, not just because of the attendance, but because there seems to have been an emphasis in the discussions across the Floor of the House and between Conservative Members that we are being asked to decide whether to index or to destroy child benefit. I utterly refute the idea that that is the question we are considering.
I want first to deal with a number of points raised in the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) overstated his case. I hope that on reflection he will decide that some of the words he used—although in the gentlest of tones—to describe the
Government's policy in this area were inappropriate. It is not true that, by not uprating child benefit, we shall hit the least well-off. As my right hon. Friend knows, if we uprated it, other benefits would be adjusted accordingly, so no benefit would flow to the least well-off families. I expect exaggeration from Opposition Members, but at least within our own party we should define the Government's policy accurately. So I hope that my right hon. Friend and others who may be inclined to support him will examine the overall record of the Government over the past few years in respect of low-income families.
Government expenditure on family income supplement, family credit, supplementary benefit and income support and housing benefit for lone parents shows their commitment to supporting such people. At 1988–89 prices, that expenditure in 1986–87 was £2·69 billion; it was £2·917 billion in the following year and £3·159 billion the year after that—increases of 8·4 per cent. and 8·3 per cent. year
by year in real terms, and a real increase of 17 per cent. between 1986–87 and 1988–89. Those are large increases, ahead of the rate of inflation, and they show our commitment to supporting low-income families.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham raised two other points. He said that the forms that we were using were long and complicated. I


acknowledge some truth in that; we are looking at them carefully to determine whether they can be shortened and simplified. Against this criticism, it must be said that 500,000 claim forms have been completed and sent in for family credit, of which 70 per cent. have been successful. Nevertheless, we shall see whether the forms represent a disincentive to claiming.
My right hon. Friend appeared to accept the point I had made in earlier debates—that it is not a matter of all or nothing in terms of income-related or universal benefits. I have used the phrase "judicious mixture", and my right hon. Friend seemed to accept that as a sensible target. Hon. Members who accept it as such should examine overall levels of child support for 1988–89, which show that we shall spend rather more than £8·5 billion across the board. of which rather more than £4·6 billion will be spent on child benefit. That seems a fair reflection of a judicious balance between the use of income-related and universal benefits.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) suggested that I sum up the debate in gentle terms. He cooed like a dove towards some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I was glad to hear that they intend to resist the temptation to join him in the Lobby. He mentioned comparative rises, questioning, rather than asserting, information about the living standards of families with and without children. He should compare such information with the reduction in real standards of living under the last Labour Government, and listen to this information about the Government's record.
From 1979 to 1985, average living standards of couples with children improved by 8·6 per cent. Living standards of couples without children rose by 5·9 per cent., and those of single people without children by 5·5 per cent. So living standards of families with children undoubtedly rose faster than those of families without them, and faster than those of single people. I hope the hon. Member for Birkenhead will take that information away and, wearing his other hat, find supporting evidence for these figures, by which I am content to stand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) spoke a great deal about the—as she called it—indiscriminate nature of child benefit and about how it is important to look at social policy in the round, in the context of economic policies. It is correct that we have provided a massive increase in overall social security provision, which has been possible only because of the economic success that we have managed to achieve.
I come now to the remarks of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). The first, mentioned by others in the debate, must be rebutted immediately. It is that our provision for and recognition of the costs of bringing up children do not compare favourably with those of other countries. The record within the European Community shows that, for two-parent families with one child under the age of two, the United Kingdom ranks second only to the Republic of Ireland in its child benefits payments. For two-child families, both children being under the age of six, we rank fifth in the EEC, behind Ireland, Belgium, Luxembourg and Italy. But it is worth reminding ourselves, in the context of child benefit payments, that Germany, Greece and Italy all means-test for child benefit, and Italy and Portugal link eligibility for this benefit to insurance status. We have no need to be ashamed of our record of recognising the extra costs of providing for children.
Next, the hon. Member for Livingston mentioned the impact of the poverty trap under our present system of social security benefits. Of course, I understand that there continues to be an element of this trap in the system. There always will be, with a mixture of universal and income-related benefits. Only if we converted to a wholly universal system would the problems of the trap be removed. But under the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported, people whose gross incomes rose received only a small percentage of that increase, and could lose more than 100 per cent. of it and people could double their gross income with no resultant net increase in income.
Family credit is designed to be generous to working families with children on the lowest incomes. Child benefit could not possibly be the sole provision in this area unless it were fixed at a level of such generosity that the taxpayer could not bear the cost.
I acknowledge the advantages of child benefit. It is., and will continue this year to he, an important part of the recognition of the extra costs of bringing up children. As has been said, it goes to between 98 per cent. and 100 per cent. of those entitled to it. It goes to the mother, and I acknowledge the importance of the mother having that extra resource. It is also important, therefore, that Opposition Members encourage the maximum take-up of family credit, which also goes to the mother.
But child benefit, important though it is, also goes to a considerable number of people who do not need the help. It is right to deal with that problem and to decide, when determining our system of support and what extra resources will be devoted to child support, what percentage of them will go to a universal benefit and what percentage will be targeted on those who need help most. As the Government have not uprated child benefit in the past two years, we have sought to ensure that we devote extra resources to helping families with the lowest incomes, with the results that I have already outlined. We have no reason to be ashamed of our record. The failure of Labour Members to support their Front Bench is a mark of their realisation of how weak their party's arguments are.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 297.

Division No. 38]
[7.00 pm

AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Boateng, Paul


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Boyes, Roland


Allen, Graham
Bradley, Keith


Alton, David
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ashton, Joe
Buchan, Norman


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Buckley, George J.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Caborn, Richard


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Callaghan, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Battle, John
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Beckett, Margaret
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Beith, A. J.
Canavan, Dennis


Bell, Stuart
Cartwright, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clay, Bob


Bidwell, Sydney
Clelland, David


Blair, Tony
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Blunkett, David
Cohen, Harrv






Coleman, Donald
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Kirkwood, Archy


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lambie, David


Corbett, Robin
Lamond, James


Corbyn, Jeremy
Leadbirter, Ted


Cousins, Jim
Leighton, Ron


Crowther, Stan
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cryer, Bob
Lewis, Terry


Cummings, John
Litherland, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Livingstone, Ken


Cunningham, Dr John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dalyell, Tarn
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Darling, Alistair
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McAllion, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McCartney, Ian


Dewar, Donald
McCrea, Rev William


Dixon, Don
Macdonald, Calum A.


Dobson, Frank
McFall, John


Doran, Frank
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Douglas, Dick
McKelvey, William


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McLeish, Henry


Dun woody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Maclennan, Robert


Eadie, Alexander
McTaggart, Bob


Eastham, Ken
McWilliam, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Madden, Max


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fatchett, Derek
Mallon, Seamus


Fearn, Ronald
Marek, Dr John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fisher, Mark
Martlew, Eric


Flannery, Martin
Maxton, John


Flynn, Paul
Meacher, Michael


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Meale, Alan


Foster, Derek
Michael, Alun


Foulkes, George
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fraser, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fyfe, Maria
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Galbraith, Sam
Mconie, Dr Lewis


Galloway, George
Morgan, Rhodri


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Morley, Elliott


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wshawe)


George, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gordon, Mildred
Mullin, Chris


Gould, Bryan
Nellist, Dave


Graham, Thomas
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
O'Brien, William


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
O'Neill, Martin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Grocott, Bruce
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hardy, Peter
Patchett, Terry


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pendry, Tom


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pike, Peter L.


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Heffer, Eric S.
Prescott, John


Henderson, Doug
Primarolo, Dawn


Hinchliffe, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Radice, Giles


Holland, Stuart
Randall, Stuart


Home Robertson, John
Richardson, Jo


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Robertson, George


Howells, Geraint
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hoyle, Doug
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Rooker, Jeff


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ruddock, Joan


Illsley, Eric
Salmond, Alex


Ingram, Adam
Sedgemore, Brian


Janner, Greville
Sheerman, Barry


Johnston, Sir Russell
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Short, Clare


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Sillars, Jim


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Kennedy, Charles
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Kilfedder, James
Snape, Peter





Soley, Clive
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Spearing, Nigel
Wareing, Robert N.


Steel, Rt Hon David
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Steinberg, Gerry
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Stott, Roger
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Strang, Gavin
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Straw, Jack
Wilson, Brian


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winnick, David


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Worthington, Tony


Turner, Dennis
Wray, Jimmy


Vaz, Keith



Wall, Pat
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wallace, James
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Walley, Joan
Mr. Frank Haynes.



NOES


Adley, Robert
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Aitken, Jonathan
Curry, David


Alexander, Richard
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Allason, Rupert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amess, David
Devlin, Tim


Amos, Alan
Dickens, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, James
Dicks, Terry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Ashby, David
Dover, Den


Aspinwall, Jack
Durant, Tony


Atkinson, David
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Emery, Sir Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evennett, David


Batiste, Spencer
Favell, Tony


Bendall, Vivian
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fishburn, John Dudley


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forman, Nigel


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Body, Sir Richard
Forth, Eric


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Franks, Cecil


Boswell, Tim
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fry, Peter


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gale, Roger


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gardiner, George


Bowis, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gill, Christopher


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brazier, Julian
Good lad, Alastair


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gorst, John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Gow, Ian


Burns, Simon
Gower, Sir Raymond


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butler, Chris
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butterfill, John
Gregory, Conal


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grist, Ian


Carrington, Matthew
Ground, Patrick


Carttiss, Michael
Grylls, Michael


Cash, William
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chapman, Sydney
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chope, Christopher
Hanley, Jeremy


Churchill, Mr
Hannam, John


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Harris, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Haselhurst, Alan


Colvin, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Conway, Derek
Hayward, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heddle, John


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Couchman, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cran, James
Hill, James






Hind, Kenneth
Maples, John


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Marland, Paul


Holt, Richard
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Howard, Michael
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Mates, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Mellor, David


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Mills, Iain


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Miscampbell, Norman


Hunter, Andrew
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Mitchell, Sir David


Irvine, Michael
Moate, Roger


Irving, Charles
Monro, Sir Hector


Jack, Michael
Moore, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Robert
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Jessel, Toby
Moss, Malcolm


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Mudd, David


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Neale, Gerrard


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Key, Robert
Neubert, Michael


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Nicholls, Patrick


Kirkhope, Timothy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Norris, Steve


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Lang, Ian
Oppenheim, Phillip


Latham, Michael
Page, Richard


Lawrence, Ivan
Paice, James


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Lee, John (Pendle)
Patnick, Irvine


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Lilley, Peter
Pawsey, James


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Portillo, Michael


Lord, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Price, Sir David


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Rattan, Keith


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Redwood, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Renton, Tim


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Rhodes James, Robert


Maclean, David
Riddick, Graham


McLoughlin, Patrick
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Major, Rt Hon John
Roe, Mrs Marion


Malins, Humfrey
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Mans, Keith
Rost, Peter





Rowe, Andrew
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ryder, Richard
Thome, Neil


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Thornton, Malcolm


Sayeed, Jonathan
Thurnham, Peter


Scott, Nicholas
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tredinnick, David


Shelton, Sir William
Trippier, David


(Streatham)
Trotter, Neville


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shersby, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sims, Roger
Waldegrave, Hon William


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Speller, Tony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Warren, Kenneth


Stanbrook, Ivor
Watts, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wells, Bowen


Steen, Anthony
Whitney, Ray


Stern, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Stevens, Lewis
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wilkinson, John


Stokes, Sir John
Wilshire, David


Sumberg, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Summerson, Hugo
Wolfson, Mark


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)



Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Tellers for the Noes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. David Lightbown arid


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Mr. Michael Fallon.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added[, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House notes with approval that the Government is providing over four and it half billion pounds for child benefit this year and that it has carried out its statutory obligation to review the level of benefit each year; and welcomes the additional resources to be provided from April for low income families with children.

Pre-school Education and Child Care

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
That the House welcomes the First Report of the Select Committee for Education, Science and Arts, on Educational Provision for the Under Fives; believes that it should be the objective of both central and local government to ensure the steady expansion in provision of nursery education until it is available to all three and four year old children whose parents desire it for them; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure a thorough survey of the existing demand for the various forms of provision for under fives and to improve co-ordination between government and local authority departments; welcomes the important contribution of the voluntary sector, including the playgroup movement; and calls for higher provision for under fives in future public expenditure White Papers, and for the speedy implementation of the Select Committee's recommendations.
In December 1972, the Prime Minister, then Secretary of State for Education and Science, published a White Paper on education called "Education: A Framework for Expansion". It launched what it called a
new policy for the education of children under five". 
The White Paper said that it was
the first systematic step to offer an earlier start in education". 
It went on to say:
The value of nursery education in promoting the social development of young children has long been acknowledged … we now know that given sympathetic and skilled supervision, children may also make great educational progress before the age of five".
The White Paper spoke about the 1967 report by the Plowden committee which had estimated that provision for 90 per cent. of four-year-olds and 50 per cent. of three-year-olds would be sufficient to meet demands. The White Paper said that the Government aimed that within the following 10 years
nursery education should become available without charge within the limits of demand estimated by Plowden, to those children of three and four year old whose parents wish them to benefit from it.
The White Paper said that circular 8/60—that infamous circular which prevented local authorities from expanding nursery education save where it was linked to returning teachers—would be withdrawn.
It is now not 10 but 16 years since the publication of that White Paper. During that time the Conservative party has been in power for 11 years and Labour has been in power for five years. However, Labour in central Government, and since 1979 in local government, has sought to implement the Prime Minister's 1972 pledge, while the Conservative party, nationally and locally, has sought systematically to ignore it.
The question of what resources and commitment we as a community should give to the education and care needs of children under five is highly political. It is a test of any party's approach to the sanctity and cohesion of family life. The contrast between the record and commitment of the Labour party and the record of the Conservative party could not be more telling or more stark.
Nationally, the significant growth in the number of nursery places took place between 1975 and 1980 when Labour was in office and responsible for spending. During that period the proportion of under-fives with nursery places doubled from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. There has never been a greater growth before or since, as table 2 of

the Select Committee report shows. In the eight years since 1980, the proportion of local authority nursery places has risen by just 3 percentage points to 23 per cent., less than a quarter of the annual rate of growth that the last Labour Government achieved.
It is perhaps a mark of the difference between the Labour party and the Conservative party that many of my hon. Friends are here for the debate while there are few Conservative Members. Apart from the parliamentary private secretaries and members of the Select Committee, there are just two free men on the Conservative Benches.
Today a child in a Labour area has twice the chance of under-five care or a nursery place than a child in a Conservative or an SLD area. The number of overall nursery and under-fives places has increased over the past nine years by 100,000, but that still leaves a shortfall of 200,000 on the Prime Minister's target of what amounts today to 700,000 places.
The expansion in good quality provision has occurred principally in areas served by Labour authorities. The best 24 education providers for three and four-year-olds are all Labour-controlled. The 24 councils whose provision is poorest are either Conservative or Democratic, or are controlled by no single party. A child in Salford, Manchester, south Tyneside or Walsall has seven times the chance of a nursery or rising fives place than a child in Kent or west Sussex. Some Conservative-controlled authorities do better, and I pay tribute to them. However, other Conservative-dominated authorities have cut the number of places for the under-fives in the last eight years. They include Harrow, Kent, Havering, west Sussex, and Hereford and Worcester. Where are those areas' Members of Parliament?
Conservative local authorities have taken their lead from their party's national administration, whose record in respect of the under-fives has been of consistent and wilful neglect. The 1979 Conservative manifesto pledged support for family life. Just nine months later, that pledge was overturned by a insertion into the Education Bill 1980 removing the qualified duty placed on local education authorities under the Education Act 1944 to provide nursery education, and replacing it with a discretionary power so that, in the words of the First Report of the Select Committee, LEAs are under no duty
even to have regard to providing education for under fives.
That change was pushed into the law in 1980, not to encourage expansion of nursery education but to facilitate its annihilation. Conservative-controlled Oxfordshire county council, for example, proposed, as a result of public expenditure pressures, closing all 12 of its nursery schools and 16 nursery classes. The then Attorney-General advised that such action would be unlawful and outwith the authority's duties under the 1944 Act.
Faced with that situation, the Government—as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out at the time—had a choice between removing any vestige of duty and imposing a clear cut duty within the constraints of limited resources. They chose to remove that duty altogether. At that time, the present Secretary of State for Education and Science, a Back Bencher verging between sycophancy and rebellion, chose sycophancy and voted with the Government. Every year since then, local authorities have been set tighter and tighter financial guidelines by Ministers, including the right hon. Gentleman when he was Secretary of State for the Environment. It is no coincidence that there are among the


24 best local authorities for educational provision many that have been rate-capped—punished financially for caring about the under-fives.
In 1987, the Government decided to tax the benefit of private workplace nurseries, making it virtually impossible for any more to open. Last year, the Government signalled the end of any positive nursery education policy, for there was nothing on that aspect in the Education Reform Bill. On 22 March 1988, at the Bill's Report stage, Labour sought to remedy that by introducing a new clause giving effect to the Prime Minister's pledge of 1972 and repealing the infamous section 24 of the Education Act 1980. No right hon. or hon. Member advanced any argument against the proposed new clause, but the Government voted it down. I regret that every Conservative Member of the Select Committee went into the Lobbies with the Government.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the Select Committee's report, but it is improper to debate it without making any reference to important comments made by the Committee as to the reasons why certain local authorities have done much better than others in terms of quantity of nursery provision.
The report points out that when social factors indicate a high level of need, that is likely to lead to a high level of block grant for that authority. It points out also that it was an objective of the 1972 White Paper that growth should be most rapid in areas of greatest need. We know that, by and large, Labour-controlled authorities serve those areas of greatest need, and they accordingly receive the largest block grants and assistance under urban development programmes, and so on. The hon. Gentleman cannot ignore that.

Mr. Straw: I do not ignore it, but the most important factor in determining whether a child has a good or bad chance of receiving nursery education is whether the local authority is Conservative or Labour-controlled. Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute that? Bristol is an area of great social need, as it was during the 1970s. Then, a Labour Government offered Avon county council, which was Conservative-controlled, hundreds of thousands of pounds to expand nursery education, but Avon refused to take a penny. Many other Conservative-controlled authorities would not take the money that they were offered in the 1970s, even though they served areas of acute social need.
The day after every Conservative Member voted down our proposed new clause to the Education Reform Bill, the Earl of Arran, speaking for the Government in the House of Lords, produced an epitaph for any suggestion that the Government support nursery education. He said:
This objective, which was adopted in good faith in 1972, has long since been abandoned."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 March 1988; Vol. 495, c. 178.]
Tonight's motion has been drawn in its entirety from the Select Committee's recommendations, and is designed to put the authority of the House behind them. If Conservative Members of the Select Committee mean what they say—and I believe that they do—it is incumbent upon them to vote with us. The Government amendment, by deleting all reference to the Select Committee's recommendations, seeks to reject them. It avoids making any mention of a financial support target.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman cut out his endless politicking, which we have seen also from his hon. Friends on the Select Committee? Is he not capable of making the educational and social case for nursery provision? The hon. Gentleman should get on with it.

Mr. Straw: It is because everyone accepts the educational and social case that I make the political case for nursery provision. We do not need a debate on the educational and social case, because it has never been denied. However, we need to debate whether the Government will back that case with cash and commitment. Those who have followed the Government's shameful and shameless record should savour the terms of the amendment that the Secretary of State has the gall to table this evening. It is breathtaking that it seeks to recognise
The Government's achievements in securing a significant expansion of nursery education since 1979.
The Government have no achievement or policy for the under-fives. What achievements there have been are by local authorities in the face of Government apathy to the needs of under-fives and downright hostility to any additional expenditure on them.
No one can accuse the Secretary of State for Education and Science of being shy, self-effacing or reticent about his own achievements. Education correspondents are weighed down with his Department's press notices, and political correspondents are weighed down with offers of lunch. Schools, parents and governors are weighed down with expensive, glossy pamphlets. Inflation in the Department's publicity budget has reached Brazilian proportions. The Department of Education and Science's publicity budget has increased by 3,000 per cent. in three years.
But in those three years of hyperactivity, what has the Secretary of State said of his achievements and policies in respect of the needs of the under-fives? He has said nothing. It is true that there were 29 words about his predecessor, now Lord Joseph, in the right hon. Gentleman's first speech as Secretary of State for Education and Science at the Conservative party conference in October 1986—comments so unremarkable that they went unreported. The best researches of the Library, including access to the computer data bases of five leading national newspapers, have been unable to make any connection since October 1986 and those 29 words between "Baker, K.", "nursery", "under-fives" or "day care".
There has apparently been no speech about the Secretary of State's record, inside or outside the House, although he has devoted acres of paper and forests of newsprint to other aspects of education—his pet project of city technology colleges, and his alleged vision for higher education for the next 25 years. On the under-fives there is not a sentence, not a word, not even a glossy pamphlet. As far as he is concerned, their needs are a non-subject: they do not exist.
It cannot lie in the mouth of the Secretary of State at once to welcome the Select Committee report and congratulate the Government on their record. For the Select Committee report is a damning and—yes—a courageous indictment of the Government's entire record, and of this Secretary of State's record in particular. So indolent has he been that such policy as exists has now


been taken over by the Home Office—a Department that lost any responsibility for children 15 years ago—and its hyperactive Minister of State.
The Select Committee report charts not only the indifference of the Department of Education and Science but its associated failure to make any serious effort to co-ordinate other Departments. Paragraph 8·10 states that the interdepartmental group has not met for some time. Co-ordination between Departments is left to the telephone. It continues:
We doubt whether such informal contacts, although valuable, are sufficient to ensure that policy on the under-fives is fully discussed and developed.
There is no longer any argument about the value of nursery education, but the Select Committee report spells out why today it is more vital than ever before. It says, with great eloquence, that in the 1980s two features stand out:
First the child of the eighties may be lonelier than in the past: families are smaller and it is more difficult for children to play with others in public places. Second, the greater pressure on parents, and the increases in the numbers of families where both parents work, may mean there is less time in the family to focus specifically on the development of the child. The stimulus provided in a nursery school or class or other educational setting can help to counter both these aspects of modern life.
The Select Committee was right. There must be a clear and categorical commitment in favour of nursery education for all, as the Committee proposes in recommendations I and 3 and as the Prime Minister proposed in 1972. That must also mean a significant expansion in funding. Of course any expansion must be paid for, but today—when the economy is buoyant as never before, or so we are told, and Government receipts are to exceed expenditure by £10,000 million—there has never been a better time to begin expansion.
The Secretary of State is adept at finding money when he regards it as a priority. The £30 million a year now being spent on fewer than 1,000 children in city technology colleges could be used instead to fund at least 30,000 nursery places. Which is more important? Which will produce greater benefit? The Government's amendment seeks to speak of an intention
to secure the continuing growth
of this sector. How do they intend to secure that growth? Are the figures in the public expenditure White Paper to be revised upwards? For, as the Select Committee points out, simply maintaining the present proportion of under-fives in pre-school education is incompatible with the level of real-term funding specified in the White Paper, or even the 5 per cent. addition that subsequent clarification sought.
The number of under-fives is going to grow, and future White Papers must make provision for that. What policy has the Secretary of State for dealing with the shortage of nursery teachers now, let alone if and when there is an expansion?
As our motion makes clear, we welcome the important contribution of the voluntary sector in providing care and education for the under-fives, especially that of the playgroup movement. That movement has played a critical role in providing a much-needed service in many parts of the country, and has helped to change attitudes by showing the role that parents and volunteers can play. But we want to see choice area by area—choice in Brighton and in the rest of Sussex, as well as the choice that already

exists in so many Labour areas. Playgroups can never and should never be seen as a cheap substitute for nursery education, but as a complement to it.
The Select Committee was convinced that the best environment for three and four-year-olds was the nursery class, and it was right. We have a duty to give all our young children the best, and that means nursery education. But there is no need for the playgroup movement to see itself as being in competition with the nursery movement or vice versa; there is work enough for both to do.
We spelt out in our consultative document, published on 11 January, the need to see nursery classes and the professionals whom they employ as resource centres for all under-five provision, giving training to support the voluntary groups. The voluntary groups have a major role to play, especially with younger children and where there is a demand for care beyond the half-day that the nursery can provide. The Secretary of State, however, will be deluding himself as well as parents if he suggests that the voluntary movement can fill the major gap in demand that is there today. Apart from the major problems of variable quality, there is the simple question of whether there will be enough volunteers.
Demand for under-five provision is increasing, not least because of the accelerating demand for mothers to go back to work. The very process that increases demand will also reduce the supply of volunteers, as the Thomas Coram research unit's work—quoted by the Select Committee—shows only too well. That increase in the number of women going back to work also underlines the case for a co-ordinated approach, nationally as well as locally, to the care needs of children—co-ordinating the provision of workplace nurseries and other nurseries, whether public or private, and raising the quality and standard of all who provide care as well as education.
Under-five provision is a Cinderella service in too many local areas, and at national level. That is shown by the lack of co-ordination between Government Departments. No Secretary of State or Department has clear lead responsibilities. That cannot go on; the DES and the Secretary of State need to take the lead. Locally, too, more co-ordination is needed, with a duty to be placed on local authorities to assess the total needs of day care and education in their areas, and then to be enablers and regulators of that provision as well as deliverers of some of it.
The Prime Minister preaches about the sanctity of family life, but her practice undermines it, whether through her broken promise on child benefit or through her broken promise on nursery education. Every child of every family in the land deserves good-quality care and good-quality education. We know what the best start is, and we know how to provide it. All that is lacking is the Prime Minister's will to govern.
Our motion turns the excellent recommendations of the Select Committee into action. It is the least that we can do for our children and their parents, and I commend the motion to the House.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the First Report of the Select Committee for Education, Science and Arts, on Educational Provision for the Under Fives; recognises the Government's achievements


in securing a significant expanse of nursery education since 1979; welcomes the important contribution of the voluntary sector, including the playgroup movement; and commends the Government's intention to secure the continuing growth of provision for the under fives in all its varied forms, and its commitment to improve quality.'.
Before answering the points made by the hon. Member
for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), let me say that I think that everyone in the House is conscious that this debate is taking place on a day when there has been a dreadful tragedy in an American school. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to convey to the American people our sense of shock and horror at that appalling tragedy.
That the debate is taking place at all—and I am very glad that it is—is largely due to the interest in education for the under-fives that has been kindled by the report published last week by the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts. The report is extremely interesting. It results from a careful and thorough
investigation undertaken by the Committee, guided ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), and I put on record the Government's appreciation of the Committee's work. We shall be giving careful consideration to its recommendations, and we shall make a full response in due course. Hon. Members will not expect me to comment in detail on the Committee's conclusions at this stage—that would be an insult to the Committee—and I do not propose to do so.

Mr. Straw: The Select Committee's central recommendation has been known for 16 years. Does the Secretary of State not intend to comment on that key recommendation?

Mr. Baker: I shall come to that point later. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to reply to the debate without dealing with that point, but I shall deal with it in my own time and in my own way.
The parents of young children have a wide variety of
arrangements providing educational care for the under-fives. They are well known to all hon. Members. They are
day nurseries, creches, child minders, playgroups, nursery schools, nursery classes in primary schools and reception classes in primary schools. Some are in the public sector;
some are voluntary, as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) acknowledged, and some are private. Some are, by definition, forms of nursery education. Others combine educational activities with a day care function. Still others are primarily providers of day care and supervision.
I welcome this diversity. It recognises the variety of needs and it responds to those needs. We must remember that what happens to children before they start school is entirely a matter for the parents to decide. They know their children best; they know their own circumstances; they are
best placed to make an informed judgment about what is right for them.
It is therefore entirely right, and indeed one of the strengths of our diverse system, that over many years there has been a steady development of voluntary nursery provision, inspired by the work of the Pre-School Playgroups Association. Yesterday I met representatives of the association, including Lady Plowden. They told me that at the moment there are some 600,000 children
benefiting from pre-school playgroups. They attend, on average, for four half-day sessions each week. The 1972 White Paper, to which the hon. Member for Blackburn

referred—"Education: A Framework for Expansion"—and to which I shall return, spoke of the "distinct and valuable role" of playgroups
alongside an expanding system of nursery education.
There are just over 17,000 playgroups. They vary in size enormously. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will know the playgroups in their constituencies. They vary in the times that they are open. Some are open late; some are open early; some provide half days and others provide full days. They make a huge contribution to the provision for the under-fives. They are to be found in the inner cities as well as in the suburbs and country towns.
When I met the representatives of the Pre-School Playgroups Association yesterday they told me of their disappointment at the apparent underestimation of their activities in the Select Committee's report. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the enthusiasm and commitment shown by the association and its many thousands of volunteer members.
There is great strength in this diversity. Different sorts of provision serve different objectives. It is unrealistic to look to one form of organisation to meet all needs. Nursery education, for example, is of benefit primarily to the child. That is its purpose. It is often part time, and at its best it involves the parents. It cannot therefore be the principal means of releasing mothers during the working day, important though that is. That is the major function of other forms of child care-—for example, day nurseries, creches or child minders.
Individual parents and individual children's needs will vary considerably. The Government are therefore committed to the continuation of a range of provision that will meet a variety of needs and a range of providers, in both the public and the private sectors. We have no intention of reducing the range of provision that is on offer. Any attempt at standardisation would be profoundly misguided.

Mr. Graham Allen: After the glowing tribute that the Secretary of State has paid to the work of day nurseries, may we take it that he intends to make representations to the Secretary of State for the Environment about improving the financial arrangements so that day nurseries can be expanded at county level?

Mr. Baker: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would listen, instead of muttering away to himself. I have been talking about playgroups, not about day nurseries. He should pay a little more attention, instead of trying to rehearse such ineffective interventions.
As for what the Government have done, the range of choice is already wide. There are also more places on offer than ever before. That is due to one very important difference between Opposition Members and ourselves. Their party talks; our party acts. The Government's record on nursery education is very impressive. Let me spell it out.

Mr. Straw: It will be for the first time.

Mr. Baker: No, it will not be for the first time. The hon. Gentleman has obviously not read "Our Changing Schools: A Handbook for Parents." There I am at the front. It is part of the enormous expansion of publicity. I wrote some of the pamphlet and I certainly approve of what I did not write. The first two pages are on how to help parents with children under five. It is one of the most popular documents that the Department of Education and


Science has ever produced. The Department is having 4 million copies printed, because schools are asking for it and want to distribute it. Let me therefore place on record my interest and involvement.
When we came to office, fewer than 430,000 under-fives attended a nursery school or class, or a primary school. By 1986, the number had increased to 509,000. In 1987 there were 8,000 more, and I am able to tell the House that we shall shortly be publishing statistics which show that in 1988 there were 16,000 more than in 1987—a doubling of the previous year's increase. That was when the numbers of three and four-year-olds increased by only 3,000. In 1988, well over half a million children in this age group—533,000 to be exact—were in school, an increase of one quarter since 1979. The Government have dramatically increased the amount of education on offer to the under-fives.
The numbers are going up all the time, and so is expenditure. In cash terms, spending in 1979–80 was £177 million. In 1989–90–10 years later�žwe are planning expenditure of £536 million, which is well over half a billion pounds. That means an increase in expenditure of over 50 per cent. in real terms in 10 years. Our plans do not simply keep pace with the rise in the number of three and four-year-olds. They allow, too, for a real increase in the participation rate.
These figures are just for education, but that is only part of the story. It is not easy to estimate the level of involvement of three and four-year-olds, because many children take part in more than one activity. For example, some may attend nursery classes in the morning and a play group in the afternoon. However, on the information that is available to us, we believe that, taking all forms of education and care together, the participation rate for three and four-year-olds is over 85 per cent., and may well he higher. That figure places us near the top of the European league table—not, as is all too often claimed, somewhere near the bottom.

Mr. Doug Henderson: The figures are bogus.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman says that the figures are bogus, but they are not.
I want to examine what Labour did. Then we can see what happens under a Labour Government. We have improved massively on what we inherited from the Labour party. Let me begin with the 1972 White Paper "Education: A Framework for Expansion" which the hon. Member for Blackburn is so fond of quoting. When that White Paper was published there were over 1·5 million three and four-year-olds, as against some 1·2 million today. That White Paper's target for nursery places was framed in the expectation of a rising birth rate. It remained the basis of policy planning for the remainder of the Conservative Government's term of office until 1974.
When the Labour party took office, it took advantage of the fall in the birth rate to claim in 1975 that it was sticking to the 1972 targets. However, it stuck only to the percentages—which was not hard going, given the drop in numbers. By 1976, with the IMF knocking on the door, it had abandoned those previous targets and substituted much more modest goals. That proved too much for the

then Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), who I see is here. She resigned because the Labour Government had cut nursery education.
Then the party of the hon. Member for Blackburn abandoned all pretence. It inflicted on nursery education a cut in spending of more than 5 per cent. in real terms between 1976 and 1979. But I do not want to be unfair to the hon. Gentleman. It could have been worse. It was not as bad, for example, as the 10 per cent. cut on primary schools or the 13 per cent. cut imposed on local authority higher education. So much for the party that cares.

Mr. Straw: I explained earlier that one reason why expenditure went down after the 1977 county council elections was that many Conservative authorities—I have the list with me—refused to take up the allocations they were offered. Will the Secretary of State explain why, despite that, there was a 60 per cent. increase in the number of nursery places—from 121,000 to 198,000—during that period and why the Select Committee—his Conservative friends—published a table on page 14 of its report showing that the number of nursery places doubled between 1975 and 1980? Who was responsible for that increase?

Mr. Baker: In the planning provisions that were made under the Conservative Government between 1972 and 1974 there was the possibility of expansion.

Mr. Straw: What about 1977?

Mr. Baker: There was a cut in 1977 because the Labour party made such a mess of running the country, and Opposition Members cannot get away from that. They cut nursery education in money terms. We have increased it by 50 per cent.
The number of places is only part of the picture, as the Select Committee points out several times in its report. We must also be concerned with the quality of the educational experience that our young people can expect to receive. The evidence from the inspectors is that in the best nursery schools and classes, teachers build on children's natural curiosity and appetite for new experience. This helps to prepare them for a smooth transition to the curriculum they will meet as they grow older.
Much of the expansion of under-fives education has taken place by accommodating four-year-olds in infant classes, and we recognise that that has not been uniformly successful. This arrangement can give children appropriate and valuable educational experience. I have visited some reception classes in primary schools which do outstanding work, but I accept that that is not uniformly the case. To avoid the immense disruption that a child can suffer when changing school at five, this arrangement is to be welcomed.
The best work with under-fives has always taken careful account of the need for continuity with what follows when children start their statutory education. In short, a crucial factor in education is the quality of the teachers. That means that there must be enough of them and that they must be properly trained—[Interruption.]—and I am sure that Opposition Members will welcome what I have to say about that.
There is now strong evidence that the supply of teachers for this age group is improving rapidly. Recruitment to all forms of initial teacher training for the early years is very buoyant indeed. Since 1986, the intake to post-graduate


certificate of education courses of training for teachers of three to seven-year olds—[Interruption.] I shall come to
the question of BEd, where the position is even better. I am at present speaking about the range of children from three to seven and PGCE courses.
The increase has been 170 per cent., from 292 to 788. Over the same period, the intake to bachelor of education courses for the same age range has gone up from 1,018 to 1,628—an increase of 60 per cent. In all, the intake in September 1988 was 84 per cent. up on September 1986. This is money that I provide for the training of teachers.
In-service training is equally important. The Government have created a new national priority area in the training grants scheme and provided grant on expenditure of £1·5 million in 1989–90 for in-service training of teachers working with four-year-olds in primary schools.
So we have already taken significant steps towards improving quality. But there is more to be done, and the national curriculum will introduce a new set of factors which those providing education for pre-school children will need to take into account.
I am asking my hon. Friend the Minister of State to establish, and to chair, a small committee including experts in the field to examine the content of the education experience offered to the under-fives. I want the group to consider, in particular, issues of quality, continuity and progression, taking into account the existing diversity of provision.
The National Curriculum Council will have a part to play in the work of the group, and I expect it in due course to be involved in taking forward its recommendations. The committee's report, which will be published, should prove a valuable source of guidance to all those providing nursery education. We shall announce details of the membership of the committee and its terms of reference very shortly. [Interruption.] That will be done as soon as possible; I treat this, as do hon. Members in all parts of the House, as a matter of importance.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the right hon. Gentleman initiate an urgent investigation into the mounting concern in Bradford among parents of first school children over the tremendous slump that has occurred in the number of children paying for school meals because of the substantial increase in the price of meals? In Bradford today a five-year-old is required to pay the same as a 15-year-old for a school meal. As a result, there is great concern about whether, on leaving school each day, children have had a school meal. There is rising absenteeism and anxiety about children's safety and welfare. Will the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to persuade Bradford council to return to the previous three-tier system which offered excellent value for money and was extremely popular among parents?

Mr. Baker: That goes wide of what we are discussing and is essentially a matter for the Bradford education authority.

Mr. Madden: It should be a matter for the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Baker: It is an issue for that local education authority.
To sum up, we are proud of our record. We have increased resources rapidly. Now, more children than ever

are in pre-school education. More teachers are being trained. We have increased expenditure by 50 per cent. Labour Members cut it by 5 per cent. We care. They cut. But we will not rest on our record. We are already committed to continuing growth in education for the under-fives and to improving the quality of that education.
Responsibility for the under-fives is not the Government's alone. All the evidence shows that pre-school education is most effective when it is supported and reinforced by the child's home experience. I believe that the main responsibility for decisions about the care, welfare and education of young children, right up to the start of compulsory schooling, lies with the parents.
Involving parents is absolutely crucial. In all education, the best practice depends on a partnership between the parent and the teacher, a partnership between the family and the school. This is nowhere more evident than for our youngest children, the under-fives. Let us all remember that.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I have said previously that when the Secretary of State is orating on his achievements and those of the Government, he is so lyrical that his words could almost be set to music. On such occasions he is always poetic. Indeed he was at his most deadly today because he was affable and more glib than usual. Some of my hon. Friends shared my experience of sitting opposite the right hon. Gentleman for about three months in Committee when we debated what became the Education Reform Act 1988. What a monster came out of that.
We are really debating not whether the Select Committee has produced a good or bad report—hon. Members on both sides have welcomed it—but whether anything will be done as a result of it. I remind the Secretary of State that it is not true to say that there are more children in nursery school now than at any time in the past. Far more children were in nurseries during the war. At that time the Education Act 1944 came into existence and we debated this subject at length at that time.
People's thoughts tend to reflect only on the situation at the time of the Secretary of State for Education and Science—now the Prime Minister—in the Heath Government. Many overlook the fact that the 1944 Act sought nursery education for all under-fives whose parents wanted it, though its provisions were not too clear about that. The Government talk blithely about the White Paper "Education: A Framework for Expansion". It should have been called, "A Framework for Contraction". Unless something emerges from the report of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, it is obvious that the Government have no intention of doing anything.
I want to compliment all my colleagues who were members of the Select Committee, especially the Chairman and the secretary. The report is good and one of the best that we have produced. Like one Conservative Member, I have been a member of three Select Committees reporting on education.
The Prime Minister, in the White Paper, "Education: A Framework for Expansion", said:
The value of nursery education in promoting the social development of young children has long been acknowledged. In addition, we now know that given sympathetic and skilled supervision, children may also make great educational progress before the age of five. Progress of this kind gives any child a sound basis for his subsequent education.
Those of us who have travelled around the country will realise that there is less nursery education in nearly all the Tory-controlled areas than in Labour-controlled areas. Is that to continue? Will the Government lean on other aspects of education or will they do something about the imbalance? The Minister has said that the Government will take action, but that remains to be seen. I will be happy if they do something.
We are all worried that this report, like many other reports about education and reports about prisons, will be ignored. Literally nothing has been done about our reports. However, the Government did say that they would do something. We have bitter experience of the Government doing little about the recommendations of Select Committees.
The fundamental problem facing nursery education is the same as that which faces the whole of the education system. The problem of nursery education may be more difficult to resolve, but essentially the problem is lack of money. It needs sufficient money to produce nursery schools and classes and sufficient teachers to teach nursery classes of a manageable size.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Flannery: Not just now.
There must be more nursery nurses as well as teachers. There must be more money. Nursery nurses have been struggling with the local education authorities for higher wages. However, the Government will not negotiate with any teachers, let alone the nursery teachers and nursery nurses. There is no negotiation and that augurs badly for any fulfilment of the Select Committee's recommendations.

Mr. Patnick: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman remembers the forward planning for local authority expenditure in 1976–77, the figures for which were set out in circular 10/75 from the Department of Education and Science. The circular recommended that local authorities which had recently allowed children to be admitted full-time to infant classes should make cuts. It said:
Younger children should be admitted, normally for part-time attendance, only within the capacity of purpose-built or adapted nursery accommodation.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the last things that the Labour Government did was to cut back on infant nursery education? That policy was not rescinded before the Labour party left office.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman is the only Conservative Member out of the 17 hon. Members who represent south Yorkshire. I knew that he would come out with something like that. There were cuts during the Labour party's tenure of office. We had taken over from a wretched Government under whom there was a three-day week—[Interruption.] It is no good Conservative Members making a lot of noise. I know that there are only a few of them here now, but they are trying to stop me speaking by making a lot of noise. The Labour Government did not have the benefit of North Sea oil or the £100 billion that it produced. We had only what a wretched Government left us and we had to do the best that we could with it.
When those cuts were announced by that Labour Government my hon. Friends the Members for Eccles (Miss Lestor) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) spoke against our Government. How many Conservative Members will challenge the Government by raising a deputation?
I had to give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) because if I did not he would have gone to the press in Sheffield and told them that I would not give way. I am not joking about that; he would really have done that. Conservative Members must remember that Sheffield has a Conservative-controlled press.
The demand is far too great for too few places in nursery provision. I hope that the hon. Member for Hallam will quote my next points. In Sheffield we must use priority. The Secretary of State said that there are special favours in Labour-controlled areas. That is not right. Primary education and education in nursery schools is real education. The Government are forcing us to give priority to women who go out to work because the only alternative is nursery education. We need more money from central Government who rely on under-staffed local authorities to make the money available.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) asked the Secretary of State for more money, he was told that that was a matter for the local authority. However, local authorities are rate capped and they do not have the money, so central Government must provide the money even for the good local authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn stated that the top 24 providers of education for three and four-year-olds are all Labour-controlled authorities. Indeed, almost all the 40 top providers are Labour-controlled authorities. Only a couple of the top 40 are not Labour-controlled. Those Labour authorities with much less cash than the wealthy Tory authorities are providing more. I am sure that the Secretary of State will try to disprove that if he gets the chance, although he could not disprove it in Committee.
Many Conservative areas, whole counties, have virtually no nursery education provision. The areas which do have it have very little. However, the Government pay tribute to nursery education. The Prime Minister has done that and she did it before when she was an education Minister. However, the Government have done very little about it. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who is obviously the cheer leader on the Conservative Benches, is aware that I take everything that the Secretary of State says with a pinch of salt and I check up on it later to see whether his glib words are right. Usually he is not right.
The Government take refuge in the provision of pre-school playgroups. Those of us who were members of the Select Committee will know that I asked whether the Government would continue nursery education in areas where there is very little, such as Dorset. The chairman of Dorset education committee said no, even though there was a demand for it in the villages in that Tory-controlled area. That demand exists elsewhere as well, but people cannot get it because the majority of the areas are Tory-controlled. Those authorities want to keep their rates down. When Labour-controlled authorities increase rates to provide nursery education, the Government rate cap our councils.
The Government fall back on the provision of pre-school playgroups. I do not need lessons about the


Pre-School Playgroups Association. Lady Plowden visited the Select Committee and said that she changed her mind afterwards. I remember Lady Plowden commenting on other reports including one on primary education. I want pre-school playgroups, but not as a substitute for nursery education because they are cheaper.
Tory authorities deliberately keep the rates down and do not have nursery education because they say that many middle-class people educate their children. We want money from central Government to pay for planned nursery education for our children. Many Labour authorities which have spent rates on nursery education are suffering as a result. We hear all the incantations from the Conservative party, but the Minister is no more determined to do anything about the Select Committee report than he was to do anything about previous reports, especially if it entails spending money. He knows that the great dictator will say, "No. You must make do with what you have." Conservative Members say that we are the "nanny" group, but they have the greatest nanny of them all who tells the Minister exactly what he has to do. If he is awkward, she will sack him. If he wants to preserve his position, he had better do nothing about nursery education. If he stands up and fights for nursery education, we shall check on him and find out just how much he does.
We have to struggle to get the Government to provide the necessary money. If local education authorities try to raise money through the rates, the Government will rate cap them. The Government have never provided sufficient money. In the Select Committee, we were all cautious because we wanted to produce a good report, and we have achieved that. I pay tribute to my Conservative colleagues on the Select Committee on producing such a good report when there were seven Conservative Members and only three Opposition Members. The number varied. There might have been four Opposition Members at one time, but we returned to only four Opposition Members attending yesterday.
Any expansion in nursery education has been achieved through good local government and not through central government. The Government shamelessly say that they have caused that expansion when it was produced by the rates in Labour authorities. I believe that we did a good job, but the Government have scores of billions of pounds at their disposal, yet they plead poverty. When abuse is hurled at us Labour Members do not say that we did not have sufficient money to carry out our plans and that we were up against a colossal Tory propaganda machine which included newspapers, radio and television. The Government now have millions of pounds at their disposal and they give it to the rich at the expense of our children.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn never mentioned the fact that in addition to the CTCs the Government have taken more than £80 million through the assisted places scheme which is growing year by year, by which middle class children are helped because they are accused of being poor.
In conclusion—and I know that Conservative Members will cheer because I am reaching a conclusion—our motion encapsulates the aims of the Select Committee, without going into detail. It points the way forward. The Government's amendment evades the issue and shows no real intention of implementing the proposals in the report. There is ample money available, if the Department can get hold of it. We shall watch very closely to see whether the Government will do anything more than welcome the

report. Will the Committee be set up and will funds be forthcoming? If funds are not forthcoming, the report has been a waste of time.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) who is a very active long-standing member of the Select Committee. I am grateful for his kind words about me and for the way in which he referred to the fact that the Select Committee was able to produce a unanimous report. Some hon. Members may wonder how we achieved that, but we managed it and I hope that that gives the report an authority which it would not otherwise have had.
I shall return to the hon. Gentleman's point about why there should be variations in the provision of education across the country. However, it is splendid for a Select Committee report to be debated within seven days of publication. Normally we wait for months, and then the report is not debated at all. Therefore, we should thank the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for tabling today's motion. It is admirable and encouraging that both sides of the House have welcomed the report. That is the correct response to the public mood, and I am delighted by it. The Opposition motion summarises the report and the Government amendment states their
intention to secure the continuing growth of provision for the under fives in all its varied forms, and its commitment to improve quality.
The motion and the amendment are gratifying responses.
It is a pity that the hon. Members for Blackburn and for Hillsborough spoke as they did about which authorities provide most nursery education. At the very least they should have considered paragraphs 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 of the report, which contain some very carefully written passages discussing why that should be so. The report makes the point that, over the years, it has generally been the case that the needs element in the rate support grant has provided additional funds for areas of greater need, as one would expect. That has been reinforced by the urban development programme. It was the stated intention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in her 1972 White Paper, that in the expansion which that White Paper planned, those areas with the greatest need should take priority. I consider that it was absolutely right that extra resources should go to the parts of the country where there are extreme needs, and it is absolutely logical that those areas should be able to achieve greater provision of nursery education.
It is a bit rough on the shire counties which get very small amounts of rate support grant because there is more overall prosperity, but we have poor people as well as rich people and we do not get the central Government support that has enabled apparently poorer areas to provide more nursery education. Rather than condemning the shire counties for our forbearance, people should occasionally thank us for accepting that we should receive less rate support grant so that areas with greater need receive more.
I hope that the hon. Member for Blackburn, who I know is quite serious about such matters, will have the goodness to read the report and acknowledge the force of what it says.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I accept that, within the rate support grant and the grant-related


expenditure assessment for each local authority, there is a needs element for nursery provision. However, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that Labour local authorities use the money that is made available specifically for nursery provision, while Conservative authorities use it for something else?

Mr. Raison: I think that it varies. Very often, Conservative authorities have particular problems—for example, the population may be more dispersed. It is easier to provide nursery education in a concentrated urban area than in a scattered rural area. However, it remains the case that if an area receives extra money specifically to meet certain needs, it should be able to provide more to meet those needs than if it did not receive that money. I do not believe that anyone can dispute that. I am not suggesting that the pattern is consistent, because, as the report makes clear, policy choices are also involved, and some areas are more enthusiastic than others. But to ignore altogether the significance of what comes from central Government, as the hon. Member for Blackburn did, is to present a very misleading picture.

Mr. Straw: I have paid the right hon. Gentleman the compliment of reading every word of the Select Committee report.

Mr. Harry Greenway: One would not have known that.

Mr. Straw: I have read the whole report. The right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) ignores the fact that, while it is true that social needs are recognised in the calculation of the rate support grant, certainly between 1983 and 1987 the target and penalty system had the impact of removing most, if not all, the rate support grant from those authorities which had the best record in nursery education. So the mechanism that the right hon. Gentleman describes, of money being targeted to local authorities, did not operate. Despite that, and despite real cuts in central funding for local authorities, particularly those authorities in social need, the amount spent on nursery education was increased as a result of local decisions.

Mr. Raison: It is also the case that the target system applied right across the board. My county of Buckinghamshire was affected by the target system. I accept that it had an impact. It was designed to have an impact on total local authority spending. I cannot deny that. As I have said, there has been a perfectly correct priority for needs. It is not surprising that the priority should have achieved the results that it was intended to achieve. I only wish that Opposition Members would not gripe about it. I wish that they would say thank you, to put it crudely.
That the Committee produced a unanimous report reflects its ecumenical approach. It is important that we have the kind of expansion that we called for in our report. It is necessary to state that social factors are a major part of that.
I was on the Plowden committee back in the 1960s when we looked at this matter. Except in terms of my own children growing up, I did not have a close professional interest in what was going on over the years, but when I looked carefully at the subject with the Select Committee, I was struck by the impact of several perfectly familiar

social changes. One inescapable fact is the increase in family breakdowns. We cannot get away from it. Illegitimacy figures, one-parent family figures and divorce figures have gone up. Those matters, which must worry all of us, constitute a significant argument for an increase in pre-school provision.
There is also greater isolation for many children. Nowadays, families are almost always smaller. Whereas, in days gone by, one might have had three, four or five brothers and sisters, statistically speaking one now has seven tenths of a brother or sister. In other words, there are fewer children around, particularly in a tower block on a housing estate or in a remote rural area. Let us not forget that side of the equation.
Coupled with that is another important problem, which is the way in which children, like everybody else, are becoming increasingly dependent on television for their experiences of life. It was pointed out to us in one local authority that the Committee visited that constant television watching can lead to a kind of cultural impoverishment, which some form of pre-school education is valuable in offsetting.
Another factor must be the enormous increase in the number of women at work and the number of women who would like to be at work. I can refer to one figure to illustrate that. According to the 1988 edition of "Social Trends",
In Great Britain, the civilian labour force rose by 1.8 million people between 1971 and 1986 entirely because of an
increase in the number of women in the labour force. That is a dramatic social fact. It must make us think carefully about how to meet the perfectly legitimate needs of women at work. It covers not only what we were concerned with in the report, which is education, but wider matters concerning day care which we did not go into deeply.
We must respond by providing good under-five education. I do not say that all children under five should receive some form of institutional education; some are not ready for it. It is a great mistake to push them into it if they are not ready. Nor—I emphasise this—should we make mothers feel inferior if they stay at home to look after their children. There is a real problem. Many mothers stay at home to look after their children, from choice or whatever reason, but they are so bombarded with propaganda about the importance of going to work and the fact that there should be more provision for those at work and so on that they are beginning to wonder whether they are occupying a legitimate role in society. We should not condemn a mother who chooses to stay at home and look after her children.
I have reservations about giving tax concessions to families in which the mothers and fathers are out at work because, by definition, they are getting two incomes, whereas, by definition, mothers who stay at home are not getting two incomes. It seems unjust that those with larger sums of money coming in should get tax concessions and that those with lesser sums coming in should not get them. Tax concessions may not be all that valuable for many poorer people, because they are not earning at the level at which they must pay tax. We should think carefully before we make any decisions.
I emphasise that I strongly support the availability and possibility of all three and four-year-olds to have nursery education, if their parents so wish.
That leads me to another overwhelming reason for an expanded programme. I refer to the ever-increasing quality and value of what can be provided at that age, leaving aside social factors, which are not the only consideration. I again refer to my own experience, going back to the Plowden days of the 1960s and what I have seen recently. Over the years there has developed an increase in the sheer professionalism and skill in education at its best. That is encouraging. I have been struck by a greater sense of rigour and direction in nursery classes. They have always been pleasant places and they have always been staffed by dedicated people. But, at their best today, they are capable of doing something of enormous value. That value is important to the child as it lives its life.
The ages of three and four are just as important as any other ages. It is worth extracting as much as we can from them. Nursery education has a long-term impact on the development of the child through the years. It is difficult to prove that statistically. There are attempts to do so, and they are well worth studying, and, although we cannot state categorically that there is a proven, long-term case for it, there is a strong case for it. We talk about nursery classes, nursery schools and playgroups.
The Pre-school Playgroups Association has exaggerated its view of what was stated in the Select Committee report. Paragraph 7.31 states:
We strongly support the place of the playgroup movement as part of this diversity.
I repeat, we strongly support it. We are not in any sense trying to denigrate what playgroups are doing. We are right to say that, in some cases, they could do with greater educational back-up. I hope that local authorities will be more willing to make available to playgroups the services of their under-five advisers. We were right also to say that, although we do not call for a general transfer of responsibility, it would make sense to transfer responsibility for playgroups from social services to education.

Mr. Harry Greenway: My right hon. Friend is making a most important point about the educational content of playgroups. Will he mention also the fact that the Select Committee was concerned about the need to produce a more even educational content in nursery provision?

Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend is right.
Playgroups have characteristics of real value. They need more help, but it is eternally to their credit that, in particular, they have involved parents to a greater degree than was the case in years gone by. The statutory sector has learnt from the voluntary sector. Let not the PPA think that we are trying to run it down or do it out of existence. That is not the case.
As my right hon. Friend mentioned, there is concern about the teaching of children aged four in primary school reception classes. I do not say that it is all bad or that teachers do not know what they are doing—it would be ridiculous to adopt that position. Nevertheless, there is anxiety about the extent to which teachers are trained or experienced in handling children of that age group as opposed to the higher age group. Sometimes there is anxiety about the child-staff ratio. Children who are just four require a ratio of 1:13, but often they do not find that in reception classes.
The ambience in primary school reception classes may be different from that in a good nursery class or good nursery school. There is general agreement about that. In the report, the Committee says that that is not an area in

which it wants to see expansion and it hopes that local authorities will be able, if they are expanding their provision, as we hope they will, to do so through nursery schools or ordinary nursery classes. The special problem is that parents are often so anxious that their children should—as they see it—get on with the three Rs that they want them to start at the earliest possible opportunity.
Sometimes, there has been a doctrinaire resistance to allowing three and four-year-olds to read at all. That is, obviously, ridiculous, but we do not want to rain into children of three and four knowledge and skills that are more appropriately picked up at five, six or seven. There is agreement about that in the educational world. One must occasionally be firm with parents although, in general, we respect the parents' importance generally in these matters.
I now wish to deal with the crucial question of funding. What the report says is, in a sense, widely accepted. The argument now becomes one of how rapidly we can see it implemented. The Government have made it clear that they intend to expand the provision of nursery education and that they plan for a 5 per cent. increase in real terms between now and 1991. However, there is a problem—one always talks in terms of problems—in that the numbers of children of nursery age are beginning to pick up.
The question is, therefore, how far the additional provision will have simply to deal with the additional children. The Government's position seems to be that they believe that, within the level of expansion that they talk about, it should be possible to accommodate the growth in the relevant age group and to have some improvement in the quality of provision as well, especially in reception classes.
That is fine, but it is obviously the case that our report is asking for more than that. An essential part of the report is that we want to see an increase in planned public expenditure to allow the steady expansion that we have in mind. I understand—as the House does—the great pressures on the budget of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I believe, for example, that there is a powerful case for funding for science and research in our universities. The introduction of the curriculum will make substantial demands and we cannot duck those real and important needs in education. However, there is great difficulty.
That leads to the fact that we must obtain more for the educational budget as a whole from the Treasury. One can at least put it to the Treasury that, among the social services, education is almost uniquely an investment. People used to think that the Health Service was an investment, but one cannot look at it in those terms. Housing is a service and social security is a service, but a good education system will clearly lead to an ever stronger economy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should be in a strong position to obtain more over the years for the education budget.
If we consider the public expenditure cycle, we have already had the Autumn Statement and we shall have the White Paper in a few days' time. To expect the White Paper to be rewritten as a rapid response would be a bit optimistic. However, I hope emphatically that, when we come to the next public expenditure round and the next White Paper is published, we shall see not merely the maintenance of the level of improvement that the Government have promised, but a real surge forward. That is important, and public opinion as a whole is


strongly in favour of that, for the reasons I have mentioned. As I said when I introduced the report a few days ago, this is a need whose hour has come. We look forward to the Government ensuring that that need can be properly and realistically recognised.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I know that the Front Bench hopes to catch my eye at 9.30 pm, so time is short. I hope that hon. Members will help each other by making short speeches.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to have the chance to follow the Chairman of the Select Committee. He and his colleagues have done an excellent piece of work, which carries the authority of having unanimous agreement in the Committee. I imagine that, as the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) commented, it is a unique event that we should be debating a Select Committee report so soon after its publication.
The motion and the amendment are especially interesting. The Labour party's motion, which I and my colleagues will support, makes it clear that it wants the Select Committee's recommendations to be implemented. The Committee does not mince its words and it makes it clear that it is important for our nation and for young people that there is an expansion in nursery education. It also says that such nursery provision requires considerably more money to be spent. It is an investment in the future which needs to be initiated soon. The Government amendment is entirely hollow. It merely comments that the report is good and recognises that the Government have done something—as they inevitably would and should. But it does not say that they will do anything to implement the Select Committee's recommendations.
There are further worrying signs, because, as the statistics in the report make clear, the expansion that was considered to be necessary in 1972–73 has not happened. Paragraph 4.3 says:
the objectives laid down in the 1972 White Paper have not been achieved.
The announcement by the Secretary of State that a Committee will be set up is, on the face of it, welcome, but it may be dangerous. It is a well-known Government trick to respond to a Select Committee and to other proposals by setting up a committee that will deliberate for sufficiently long that no decisions can be taken for a long time because the Government will say that everything is being considered. If we are to have increased spending commitments in 1990, which is the first realistically achievable opportunity, any committee must come to conclusions quickly. Otherwise, just at the time when local authorities are feeling the strain because of the implementation of the poll tax in England and Wales, they will not be able to do their part to ensure the expansion of the budget that is necessary for pre-school education and child care. We need to sound a warning about that and to point out the need for a strong and urgent commitment from the Government.
The right hon. Member for Aylesbury has, I hope, allayed the fears of those who are professionally interested in playgroups. He has made well the point that the Select Committee envisages the continuance of diversity. The

statistics in the report make it clear that up to now playgroups have formed the largest group of provision. Table 1 shows that 409,000 children attended playgroups in 1985. The next most sizeable group, in nursery classes and schools, was 267,000. There are no foreseeable circumstances in which playgroups will not continue to play a major part. The liaison between the voluntary and statutory sectors and the extended sector that nursery education should form seems to be fundamental. Playgroups must be supported and increasingly supplied with trained people to work in them. Qualified nursery nurses are one category of professional that should be expanded.
The points made by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury about expenditure must be listened to. Over the years, certain local authorities have been funded specifically to meet the need. Avon, for example, where power is shared between Labour and my colleagues, spent on under-fives about £8 million over the grant-related expenditure assessment figure of £3·6 million. It spent a lot more than it was given to spend, but it is still in the lower half of the list of provision. How much local authorities have as the base from which they start depends on the allocation by central Government. Simply looking at the provision and attributing fault or credit to the local authorities is insufficient analysis. We must look at such matters accurately and then consider the commitments of local and central Government.
Another issue that has been alluded to but not developed is that, as we know, one of the Government's expenditure commitments will be the national curriculum and one of the implications of the national curriculum is that schools will assess youngsters aged seven, of whom some will have been at school earlier than others and some will have received nursery provision. I hope that the way in which those children are assessed will take into account the unevenness of the present education provisions. The Select Committee report makes it clear that there is a range of provision from almost nothing in some areas of the country to substantial provision in other areas.
Of course, one must select priorities and the Secretary of State and his colleagues will have to do that as they consider the report. However, I hope that they will not only make it a priority that they argue for and, I hope, achieve more funding but that they will then decide where that money should go. I would argue first that there should be funding for local authorities to enable them to co-ordinate public and voluntary efforts and so that they can secure the availability of part-time care provision for all three-year-olds and full-time provision for all four-year-olds within, say, three years. Secondly, I suggest that we build on the present public and voluntary provisions for three and four-year-olds and commit the money to secure the educational content of that provision—a point made by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury—with the aim of securing nursery provision with properly trained staff for all three and four-year-olds by the late 1990s. We must keep up the momentum, and the statistics, which are well set out in the report, show that we have slipped.
I should like to refer to just one more issue and shall do so by way of example. The right hon. Member for Aylesbury rightly quoted the reasons why nursery education is especially important, and referred specifically to the social reasons. It is true and significant that there is an increasing number of isolated children and isolated


families, including isolated one-parent families, and that fact contributes to the greater need of those families for the sort of provision that the report recommends.
The social context now is very different from what it was 20 years ago. Those of us who represent areas such as inner London are forced to observe that things are not only getting worse but that children are substantially at risk. The Inner London education authority has done relatively well as an education authority, yet it is in the lower half of the Labour party's table of nursery education provision, even though it has always been under Labour control. It is to be abolished in 1990 and its education functions are to he transferred to boroughs, such as my own of Southwark and others.
The report makes the point that the co-ordination of functions between authorities needs to be substantially improved. At the end of December two parents, a mother and a stepfather, were convicted at the Old Bailey of the manslaughter of their 16-month-old child. That case was widely reported. The child was Doreen Mason Aston who came from Southwark. She had been the responsibility of various agencies, authorities and departments and of different borough and district councils for all of her 16 months. Those bodies had wilfully neglected to come to her rescue. Her life came to an end because there was no proper co-ordination between the agencies caring for children.
The Labour motion calls on the Government
to improve coordination between government and local authority departments.
One way to do that is by knowing what is happening. Like all institutions of the House, the Select Committee is commendable because it is a public body which reports in public and makes sure that we all know what it thinks. However, there is a worrying trend that in central and local government things are kept quiet. The only way we shall be able to judge what Government Departments do and what local authorities do is if, when they are inspected, monitored and assessed, the results become public information.
I am restrained tonight from commenting on the documents in the Doreen Mason Aston case, although I have read them because the local council went to court and took out an injunction based on the "Spycatcher" principle preventing the press from publishing details of the case. That is a restriction on the right of the public and those in both central and local government to be able to judge what goes wrong when agencies caring for children do not co-ordinate their services.
In London, which I know better than other places, the social services departments and the other agencies, including education authorities, that work with and for children are in crisis. They are underfunded and are not co-ordinating their work properly. Unless we correct that trend and unless we can deal with social pressures in the inner city through substantial funding and substantially better monitoring and co-ordination, we will not be caring for our under-fives because they will not be entering the compulsory education system able to develop properly as rounded children.
The Select Committee report gives us the launch pad for the debate. Our objectives should be that children are cared for, first by their family, but by their community if their family cannot do it. Education provision should be provided for them as early as possible. We lag behind other European countries in this and, sad to say, have made little

progress in recent years. I hope that today will mark a change in that tradition and that we shall expose those things that are hidden at present which prevent us from knowing how severe a problem we have.

Mr. James Pawsey: I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will forgive me if I do not pursue his arguments too closely. I suppose that Conservative Members should see the Opposition motion as something of a backhanded compliment about the way in which the Government are managing the economy. Clearly, the Opposition have much higher expectations of this Government than they had of theirs between 1974 and 1979. My reason for saying that is that real term spending on the under-fives has increased by some 35 per cent. since 1979–80 and is planned to increase by a further 15 per cent. between 1986–87 and 1989–90
I have to repeat the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) asked Opposition Members earlier: if they felt so strongly about pre-school education, why did they not do more about it when they were in government? The answer, I suspect, is that they allowed the economy to get into such a complete shambles that they were unable to fund any expansion anywhere, let alone for the under-fives.
Fortunately, the present Government through their careful management of the economy have funds and I am pleased that, as my right hon. Friend said, there has been a substantial increase of about 100,000 pupils under five in nursery and primary schools— an increase of about 25 per cent. in eight years. The lectures to which we have listened from Opposition Members would he rather more acceptable if their record was not so appalling in this, as in so many other areas of education.
The House will recall that it is not a statutory requirement on local education authorities to provide education for children under five. The view taken by this side of the House is that local education authorities should be able to decide for themselves the degree of priority which they should give to that part of the education scene.
Again, it is important to remember that in this country we seek to provide as wide a choice as possible to parents, and some parents will undoubtedly decide that playgroups are the best answer for their children, and I find it significant that they provide a facility for about 40 per cent. of four-year-olds.

Mr. Win Griffiths: On the basis of the provision tables, it would appear that the Conservative authorities give least priority to nursery provision for the under-fives. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that in the county of Gloucester there is not a nursery school place for any child under five?

Mr. Pawsey: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he clearly did not listen to the answers which were given to similar questions by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury. However, I must say to the hon. Gentleman that those authorities must respond to the democratic principle, just as we must in this House. They must reply to their electorate through the ballot box. If the electorate do not like the way in which those authorities run the education scene, the answer is clear.
I acknowledge, however, that, as the economy continues to improve and as unemployment continues to fall, so more mothers are being encouraged to take up and, indeed, are taking up employment. The corollary of that is that they require their child to be cared for and looked after when they are at work. That is why I welcome—it would be good to hear Opposition Members also welcoming it—the further cash increase this year of £139 million, which brings the total spending on the under-fives to well over half a billion pounds—some £536 million.
However, I should like to strike a gentle note of caution. While I understand the pressures on mothers to go out to work, they will be aware of their unique importance to young children. I acknowledge the point made on this matter by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury. It appears to me that the family still remains the best nursery for children. Children can learn so much from caring parents. One of the matters which causes me special concern is the fact that when I visit schools I discover that some children must be taught—even in primary school reception classes—certain basic matters, such as simple and elementary conversation. I would therefore like to see more head teachers advising parents of the standards which are expected when a child actually starts school.
No one expects any great knowledge or ability from a rising five-year-old, but I hear too often from teachers that parents are increasingly prepared to pass more and more responsibility for their children's education on to the school and on to the classroom teacher. I hear too often that parents are prepared to leave their child in front of the television set. Indeed, television appears to be becoming some form of electric childminder to the great disadvantage of young children, which is a further point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury. One cannot stress enough the importance of encouraging parents to talk with their children, to answer their questions and to encourage the growth and development of their young minds.
I referred earlier to working mothers, and I must say that there appears to be a substantial element of responsibility on an employer—rather than just on the local education authority and the state—to make adequate provision for children. Clearly, the employer is deriving some form of commercial advantage from mothers working and I can see no reason therefore why an employer should not shoulder a greater burden of the involvement in caring for the child of a working mother.

r. Malcolm Thornton: We would all agree with my hon. Friend's comments, especially those of us who were able to study the American system of employer provision. Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that there is a problem in this respect because, if employers provide facilities for their employees' children, those facilities are taxed as benefits in kind, which is in fact a disincentive?

Mr. Pawsey: I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend is driving at. Perhaps it is a matter to which we should give further consideration. As I said earlier, the employer should carry a little more of the burden than he does presently. The giving of certain tax incentives may be a way of achieving my hon. Friend's objective.
The report of the Select Committee is most comprehensive. I would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and the other members of the Select Committee, because they have clearly produced a painstaking report. They examined witnesses in depth. Undoubtedly, the report will be considered by the Government during the months ahead.
I noted what the Select Committee said under the heading "Conclusions and Recommendations". It said:
There are many good playgroups and day nurseries, but in many there is scope for giving greater emphasis to education objectives.
I must say to my right hon. Friend and other members of the Select Committee that, with the introduction of the national curriculum, one hopes that there will be a little less emphasis on play and rather more emphasis on learning.
I am not entirely certain that I agree with the Select Committee when it says in its report:
It should be the objective of both central and local Government to ensure the steady expansion of provision of nursery education until it is available for all three and four year old children whose parents desire it for them.
I feel that three is a little early. I know that my right hon. Friend might quote the example of John Stuart Mill, who at the age of three was, in fact, being brought up on classical Greek. However, I put it to him that there are not many in that position. I am a little doubtful, therefore, about the effectiveness of anything resembling a structured education for three-year-olds. It is significant that in France only 14 per cent. of the three to five-year-olds have full-time education. By comparison, in this country, it is 47 per cent., with, I suspect, the majority of them falling into the four rather than the three-year-old category.

Mr. Raison: We are certainly not advocating that all three-year-olds should have full-time education. My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension.

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for clarifying that point. None the less, I am apprehensive about three-year-olds even enjoying part-time education to the degree to which perhaps my right hon. Friend has implied in the report.
Elsewhere in the report the Select Committee says that the number of places specifically for the initial training of early years teachers should be further increased.
I am entirely in agreement with that laudable objective. For too long education of the very young has been regarded as a not especially important job. I happen to believe the reverse and that to cater for young children in nursery or reception classes is a demanding job, calling for enormous patience. I certainly support the Select Committee in its encouragement to the training colleges to ensure that students cover the entire age range of the course.
In taking note of the Opposition's appalling record in this sector, I believe that this motion is completely mischievous and deserves to be soundly defeated.

Miss Joan Lestor: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for following my career with such profound attention. I cannot for the life of me remember what he was doing 13 years ago, and if anybody in 13 years' time can look back and remind us what he was doing tonight I shall be surprised.


I am grateful to the Secretary of State for reminding me that I resigned from the Labour Government over their failure to expand nursery education. I am also grateful to one or two newer hon. Members who have come up to me this evening and said, "My God, did you actually resign?" That may have elevated me a little in the annals of Parliament and in my own party. But I am not the slightest bit embarrassed. My resignation may have been the catalyst a year or two later which encouraged the Labour Government to expand nursery education, as they did, before the 1979 election. One has to take a stand. If someone in the DES were to take it upon himself to resign now we may see an expansion in nursery education.

Mr. Pawsey: We are happy with the team that we have.

Miss Lestor: The hon. Gentleman is easily satisfied I congratulate the Select Committee on its report. I agree with most of what the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said, so I shall not repeat it except to remind him that he and I go back a long way in the battle for pre-school education. My regret is that so much of what is in the report has been said repeatedly over the years, yet a large number of our pre-school children still do not receive the stimulation or the facilities that they should receive.
Education is basically about curiosity, as every good educationist knows. A good educationist has the technique to harness that curiosity, to stimulate it and to apply it in a learning situation. Children are at their most curious between the ages of two and five. Those are the golden years of learning and development. How we treat children during that period of their lives, how we develop their attitudes to learning and to the world around them, can and does have a profound effect upon their later progress and what they do when they enter the education system. That is the educational case for the pre-school child. That has always been the education case for the pre-school child.
It is a matter for great concern that in Britain we have a school starting age of five. Many children do not start school even then—many have had no pre-school experience. As the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) pointed out, many children arrive in school unable to look after themselves in fundamental ways. However, it is no good saying that the parents should be told to do this or that. That is where we may differ. In my area Salford is top of the pops for nursery education. That is no credit to the Government, but to Salford. Salford has made that provision, not the Government.

Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Lestor: My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) says that I should not give way, but I may later.
Salford has expanded nursery education because of the need for pre-school experience for our children.
The Secretary of State's figures included a variety of provision, much of which is not funded by the Government. Twenty-one years ago almost to the day, I believe in April—we are having a bit of history tonight—there was the first ever lobby of Parliament by the under-fives for more pre-school education.
Before that, in the early 1960s when the Tory Government were in power, the pre-school playgroup

movement was formed. I have always supported that movement. I did so long before many hon. Members recognised its value. It came into being because of the lack of nursery school provision in Britain. Whatever contribution it has made since then in a variety of provision that we all welcome, it came into being because of the lack of provision under the Tory Government in the early 1960s.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Any lack was continued by the Labour Government.

Miss Lestor: Yes. I am not saying that it was not. I am saying that the playgroup movement came into existence because of the lack of nursery education under the Tory Government in the late 1950s and early 1960s. People can look that up for themselves.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on departmental confusion over provision for the under-fives. That has always existed. There has always been confusion between health and education. There is a sort of apartheid, which is worrying, where children who—to use the phrase loosely—may be considered priority cases or deprived tend to go in one section, while children living in different types of area go into another section. Somehow the two must be married. Nursery centre developments in which people from the DES and the National Nursery Examination Board have joined together have resulted in the sort of provision that is necessary for the development of young children.
The report—in this it was supported by the Secretary of State—also criticised taking four-year-old children into primary schools in which there is no proper pre-school equipment or the standard of nursery-school ratio that we want. Too often children are confused and not given the stimulation required for the age group to which they belong. I am glad that this fact has been recognised. Many of us have said for a long time that it should be.
I am apprehensive about the report's ideas that we must start somewhere. Of course, for many years we have been saying that priority should be given to children in high risk categories until more resources are available. But it depends what is meant by priority. There are children at risk, children who fall between two stools, children trapped in high-rise flats and children in bed and breakfast accommodation. Most of them have no pre-school experience and need it desperately. There are bored children, lively children, highly active children, lonely children, isolated children of working mothers. I congratulate the Daily Mirror on the valuable campaign that it is waging in this last respect. All our children need pre-school experience and a variety of pre-school facilities must be made available. It is not right to pick out one category of children and say that they need the experience more than any other.
The table clearly shows the lack of provision by local authorities in some of the rural and more isolated areas of the country, which is where the need is often greatest. Children are isolated; the gaps between houses and areas are wide, and that is where provision is needed. Children there are at risk and isolated.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey spoke of a child who fell between various Departments and was picked up by some. That has happened before. Abused children who have recently been in the news, some


of whom have died at the hands of inadequate parents, have often not had the opportunity of a pre-school education, or been caught up in any organised form of education. If the facilities had been available to offer them that, it would have helped us to spot the children who are suffering and in need.

Mr. Harry Greenway: It is difficult to disagree with much that was said by the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor). Her record with under-fives is distinguished, but I want to pick up one point that she made, which links in with the report, which I wholly support.
I refer to the position of three and four-year-olds in primary schools. It is absolutely right, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and the hon. Member for Eccles said, that such children should not be absorbed into primary schools and into the main stream of five-plus education. However, I hope to carry all hon. Members with me when I say that it must be possible in a time of falling rolls in primary schools, when there is plenty of room for expansion in the number of places for children, for many three and four-year-olds to go into primary schools because the space is not taken up by five-plus-year-olds. But each nursery unit in a primary school must be separate. It should have a separate head and be separately run. That is where we have been going wrong. Our report would have been better if we had stressed the need for heads of nursery units, both in primary schools and in separate units. That would be valuable for the teaching profession because it would increase the opportunity of senior posts for people looking after the under-fives.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury mentioned those who told the Select Committee that children who do not receive education below the age of five are disadvantaged for the rest of their lives. I agree with that, although it is not necessary for such children to be educated in nursery units or pre-school playgroups. If children have not received an education from their mothers, or in some other way when under five, they are disadvantaged for the rest of their lives. That is why the report is so important. We say that the state should provide a back-up for all children whose mothers cannot perform, or do not want, this role, or whose parents do not have the resources to make provision for them. That must be part of the state's role, and that is why I am a keen supporter of the report.
I have known the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for over 20 years and I am sorry that he did not make the case on education and social grounds. I understand his need to put the political case, but I urge him to stress the education and social needs of the under-fives. I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider what the Select Committee saw in the United States. There, we learnt that 57 per cent. of all mothers with a child below the age of a year are out at work—a huge figure. In this country, the equivalent figure is 27 per cent. In the United States we saw children from the age of a fortnight in nurseries or some form of pre-school provision. That is horrendous but one day we shall have to face it.
In some areas of the United States the provision for the under-fives is not ambitious enough. The fresh start programme, which has been commended throughout the world, sought, as its basic aim, to give all under-sixes self esteem. That is tremendously important because so much grows from it, but much more than that could be done. For example, the way that children learn to socialise, have good conversations with one another and with adults, and learn to read and write, all depend on their ability and drive. I commend self esteem as a good start, but we must do more.
For the report, the motion and the amendment to say that all parents of three and four-year-olds should have the opportunity of nursery education if they want it suggests to parents that they should want education for children below the age of five and that if they do not they are failing them. That is not to say, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, that they would be failing them if they did not place them in nursery schools or pre-school playgroups. The diversity of provisions that we have means that there are so many valuable provisions for the under-fives that parents who do not place their children in some form of pre-school facility or who do not look after them and educate them in their own homes will be failing them for life.
It would be wrong to advocate compulsion. It has been suggested in this debate that perhaps there should be compulsory education for children of three years upwards. That would be wrong. The existing system is most likely to lead to well-motivated education for children below the age of five and well-motivated parental interest. The motivation of parents and children throughout education is of the highest importance.
The report, which has been so fully debated, brings out the fact that we need to look much more for an even education provision for the under-fives because there is no broad acceptance of what society is seeking to do with children of that age. In some places they play about with water and sand—and there is nothing wrong with that—while in other areas they are pressed to learn to read and write, and that can be stressful to little children. In other areas none of those things is provided. As I have said, in the United States they are content to go simply for self-esteem and ignore some of the other learning skills that could be developed.
The most important education aspect of the report presses for each local authority to be asked to produce a report on what is best practice in its area. That would be done as a means of seeking to influence people in its own area, and in other areas, to do well for everyone that which is best done in some places. That is of the highest importance and great stress should be placed upon it.
As the hon. Member for Eccles and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we need to underline again and again the urgent social need for education for the under-fives. Many of us have experience in our constituency surgeries of mothers, girls of 16 to 19 and sometimes outside that age range, coming to see us. They are girls whose partner has left them or who are unmarried and struggling to bring up children on their own. Those young women are not able to give their children the education background that they need and often they are not able to give them the right sort of social background. Many of them certainly have financial difficulties. Society must step in to help children whose mothers are so hard pressed.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: When nursery education is discussed there is always an abundance of good will about the idea of increasing the number of nursery places. Unfortunately, the reality is that there is little evidence of financial commitment by the Government to enable that expansion to take place. The idea of expanding nursery education has been talked about for years without any appropriate action being taken, and the meagre Government provision is under threat from further cuts in spending and must be protected.
We must always understand that the provision that exists is no thanks to the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, the Education Act 1980 required local education authorities to provide nursery education, but that requirement was removed to allow Oxfordshire to savage its nursery provision. So much for the Prime Minister's so-called commitment. The top 20 providers of nursery education are all Labour-controlled local education authorities. If it had not been for such authorities nursery provision would be negligible.
I have great respect for the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Raison), and admire the way in which he handled the Committee and the report. However, despite what he says, every local education authority gets some recognition in its grant-related expenditure assessment of the need to spend money on nursery education. That need is defined by reference to the numbers of children under five and the social conditions. While Labour authorities spend that money on nursery provision, Conservative authorities spend it in other ways. It is audacious for the Government to claim any credit for increased provision or for education spending in general. The Government's audacity takes some beating.
Government spending on education has been cut by about 18 per cent. since 1979. The national increase is due to the efforts of Labour local authorities, who have funded it by increasing rates to compensate for Government cuts. The Government's downright dishonesty is disgraceful. They claim credit for increased expenditure, but have penalised many education authorities for spending more. That must be the height of hypocrisy.
Putting financial considerations aside, why has nursery education been relegated to the bottom of the league table? I believe that it is because parents, and the public in general, are not sufficiently aware of the importance of nursery provision and have no long-term commitment to it, even though it is special and more urgently needed than ever before. Nursery education is not a child minding service; it plays a crucial role in a child's ability to benefit fully from later educational opportunities. It helps form a positive attitude towards the child's future education. Plowden, Bullock and Warnock are among those who stress their conviction that nursery education is important and desirable, yet the hoped-for expansion has yet to be realised.
There is now the Select Committee's report to consider. Will we hear the same old story about lack of resources? Before the age of five, children experience their most rapid period of development—physically, socially, emotionally and intellectually. Nurseries provide carefully planned and structured environments for stimulating the child's curiosity, helping to make sense of the world around him.
Qualified nursery teachers and nurses provide a total learning environment, comprising a whole range and variety of stimulating activities, incorporating pre-number and pre-reading skills that extend the child's comprehension and capacity for learning. The nursery sets the foundation for his future.
Unfortunately, only a small proportion of children benefit from nursery education. It depends where they live. If parents live in an area whose local authority is not Labour controlled, or they are unable to meet the cost of private nurseries, an important and crucial stage in the child's young life will be missed. The skills and expertise of a trained nursery teacher and nursery nurse can also help diagnose potential handicaps or special needs. Nursery education is of undoubted benefit to the disadvantaged child. It is not a luxury but an investment in the future Our children deserve the best possible provision in their vital early and formative years. That means making available many more pre-school places.
If the Government recognise the value of nursery education, as they claim, they must accept and adopt the Select Committee's report in its entirety. There are no substitutes for nursery education. Early admission to schools also varies considerably from one local education authority to another, but if LEAs are obliged to provide nursery education for all pre-school children, the discrepancies between admission policies will disappear.
Sufficient expansion of nursery places will ensure that the need for early school admission will be negligible. It is deplorable that we have to admit children to schools early simply because there is inadequate nursery provision. That should never arise. More nursery school and nursery unit places are needed. The lack of them is damaging our children's prospects. Admitting children to school early is no substitute for the stimulating environment of a nursery school or unit.
For young children, play is the principal means of learning, and they ought not to be deprived of that important element in their development. Infant schools do not have the facilities or scope to provide the opportunities that nurseries can offer. They are often handicapped because of the large numbers they have to accomodate, which can be high, even in reception classes.
The Government have not capitalised on falling rolls to provide a lower teacher-pupil ratio. The reverse is true: teacher-pupil ratios have increased alarmingly in some schools. Reception classes, in which in my opinion the teacher-pupils ratio should be 1:20 at the maximum, have a ratio as high as 1:30 in many schools, and sometimes more. That is damning for the education of young children, but then the Government have shown scant regard for our education system as a whole. If we addressed ourselves to providing free nursery education —nursery schools as well as units—for every child who wanted it, the problems of rising-fives and early admission to schools would no longer exist.
In speaking about nursery provision we must not forget the handicapped child, who deserves the same opportunities. The Warnock committee recommended that provision be made for such children if they were to be integrated into normal schools later. Unfortunately, the recommendations have yet to be implemented, which is hardly surprising, given that there is inadequate provision of nursery places for the normal child.
For too long we have merely talked about increasing nursery provision. We must take a more positive attitude.
Most hon. Members seem to realise the value of such provision, yet nothing seems to be done. Is that because pre-school attendance is not compulsory and we therefore do not attach the same importance to it? If so, we are making a big mistake. We should be answerable to our children and their prospects. We owe them the opportunity to reach their full educational potential.
The Select Committee has made some important recommendations on pre-school provision. The Government should accept those recommendations as a basic starting point and provide the necessary resources.

Mr. James Paice: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate as a "free-standing" Member, to quote the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), as I am not a member of the Select Committee. However, I read the Committee's report with great interest.
I found it difficult to equate the account given by the hon. Member for Blackburn of the record of the past 16 years with what I believe to be the case. The Plowden report was produced in 1967, three years before the end of a Labour Government, and it was not until the Conservatives came to power that the White Paper that has been referred to so many times was published, to be implemented subsequently by a Government circular.
I looked in vain for evidence of what the Labour Government had done in the way of White Papers, memos, circulars and so on. All that I found was a Green Paper, which has not been referred to, called "Education in Schools". It contained a telling paragraph. Having paid lip service to the Labour Government's record in nursery education, it qualified that with the words
even though limitations on resources will confine further expansion of provision in the immediate future to the areas of greatest social deprivation.
That does not quite tally with the massive expansion that we were expected to believe in.
Another important development was the Education Act 1981, which laid a duty on local authorities to identify and assess cases of special need among children aged over two, and, if making a statement on such a child, to make the provision indicated. That is an important step forward, and I am sorry that not every local education authority has proceeded with it.
The Opposition make great play of the need to understand and support local democracy. It is a result of that that, unfortunately, they have not all made the provision that we would wish. [HON. MEMBERS: "They had no money."] We have already heard the argument about money, and the clear case that many authorities have not the allocation to enable them to act.
I strongly support the Government's policy of a variety of provision, but I was a little disappointed by the implication about pre-school playgroups that I read into the report. I am comforted by the comment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) that we may have misunderstood it, but I shared the pre-school playgroups views of the association. Playgroups have an important role to play.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) mentioned rural areas, one of which I represent. In such areas nursery schools are almost a non-starter from the financial point of view.
We have great difficulty in maintaining some of our primary schools that cater for five or six age groups. It is impossible to justify special schools for one or two age groups. Pre-school playgroups have a major role to play in catering for them. They have a number of advantages. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) referred disparagingly to the fact that pre-school playgroups are cheaper to run, but that is very important.
I am the first to accept that the standards of some playgroups need to be improved, as does the quality of the training of the people who run them. However, we should capitalise on the great wealth of opportunity that the pre-school playgroups provide. The children will benefit if their parents and other adults are involved in running them. It is most important to involve parents in the education of their children while they are very young. I support the Government's policy to try to involve parents throughout the whole of their children's education. The provision of pre-school playgroups means that parents are involved in their children's education from the very beginning. If parents are involved at that stage, they will continue to be involved in their children's education.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. It is a good report. I welcome the Government's policy and I look forward to the substantive reply to the report.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: This has been an important debate, called for by the Opposition because of their commitment to improve the opportunities for all children under the age of five and to enable their parents to take advantage of pre-school education and child care. The Select Committee's report has provided a timely and apposite basis for many hon. Members' speeches.
The motion is based on the Select Committee's report but the debate has not centred solely on the report. We called for the debate because the Government have signally failed to fulfil even their manifesto commitment. Therefore, they have failed the children and the people of this country.
The Secretary of State admitted that he had not previously made a speech on nursery education. I was glad that he referred to the importance of choice for parents. Parents say that they want choice, but for most of them there is no choice. If there is no provision, how can they have choice?
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He has had to leave the debate early, for personal reasons. I hope that he will have words with the leader of his party, who said, when he last spoke in the House, that it was ludicrous to ask for nursery provision to be made available for all children over the age of three if their parents wanted it. I hope that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) will learn something from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.
If we are to fulfil the commitments contained in the Select Committee report and in the motion, we have a lot of work to do. People are sick of words. They are looking for action. We have heard much about the Government's


commitment and how well they have done. That is a travesty of the reality, which is that Labour authorities have increased spending on education while the Government have been in office, although the Government have reduced the overall amount that is spent on education.
Education in a child's early years is very important. Its value has been spelt out over the years by many hon. Members, and it was confirmed by the 1972 White Paper and by recent research. Its value was reaffirmed by the Select Committee. Nursery education and child care have become increasingly important in our changing society. Young children are vulnerable. We are just beginning to recognise how vulnerable they are as we come to terms with child abuse. They are not as safe on the streets as they used to he. They are much more likely now to be members of small families. All those developments increase the need for group care and education.
Nursery education and child care is of growing importance to parents. Many more adults, particularly women, are required to become members of the work force, and I have been interested to see the way in which some hon. Members think that women decide to work as a whim. While many women have to work through economic necessity, many of them wish to contribute their skills, experience and knowledge to society and to achieve personal fulfilment. If the Government are serious about achieving equal opportunities, they must ensure that women have a real choice when they wish to go out to work. They can make that choice only if there are adequate child care and education facilities for their children.
Nursery education in the 1990s will be important economically for the nation. As many more women are encouraged to go to work and into post-school training and education, the break to have children must no longer result in their often returning to jobs with less skill and a lower rate of pay. What a waste, and how frustrating and demoralising that is for women. They should have confidence that they can make real choices about when they return to work after the birth of their babies, and those choices must not leave them feeling anxious all day long.
All that involves the availability of affordable and accessible quality child care. Today, provision for the under-fives is sparse, unco-ordinated and of variable quality. We in Britain are isolated in our failure to recognise the urgency of these demands and the damaging effects on families when their needs for child care are neither acknowledged nor met.
Labour Members are determined that there will be a co-ordinated strategy which will integrate facilities and offer parents a real choice of quality provision. At present the chance of one's child having some form of pre-school provision is a lottery. It depends on where one lives. If one lives in Labour Salford or north Tyneside, one has an opportunity to send one's child to school or playgroup.
I talked to parents in North Tyneside on Friday. They expressed enthusiasm for what was on offer there and talked about its value for their children. One mother spoke of the difference she had perceived between her son's first year at school—the boy had not previously had access to a nursery place—and the first year of her daughter, who had attended nursery.
Parents also talked about what pre-school provision meant for them. It had made them more confident in

asking questions about their children's education, about what books to choose, about what play equipment was good for their children and about the confidence they themselves had to return to education. Several spoke about the value of being involved in the parent and toddler group which was accommodated in and supported by the local school but run and managed by the parents. Their children were able to move into nursery school, and they could continue to play a part in their children's schooling, if they wished.
The tragedy of much of the current debate is that, as a diversion from the objective of giving more choice and opportunity nationwide, the Government are trying to set the value of one provision against that of another. To argue for more nursery school places is not to devalue the contribution, for example, of pre-school playgroups.
There must be a variety of provision, but it must be within an area as a whole, with parents being assured of quality wherever their children are placed. At present, many parents must put together a package that is convoluted and includes too many carers, leading them to feel that their children could he unhappy.
We desperately need a co-ordinated and integrated national strategy. Leaving it to chance, as the Government have been happy to do, is simply not good enough. The Government have a responsibility to monitor, to regulate for minimum standards and to provide a structure for training and support of all workers in child care. Commitments made in 1972 about supplying teachers have yet to be met. The nursery element in teacher training is still wholly inadequate and the status of nursery teachers is frequently low with little opportunity for career development.
Nursery nurses feel undervalued and have little opportunity for career progression. Nursery staff have told me over and over again that they try to work as a team, but the provision for in-service training offered by the Government divides them and undermines the team spirit.
I visited Sheffield recently, as did the members of the Select Committee. Sheffield has made great progress in trying to tackle those problems. It has also moved towards the integration of education and social services to great effect. But at what cost? Sheffield knows where it wants to go, but it has suffered from Government cuts and has had to hold up its programme of expansion. North Tyneside is also not complacent, but it is aware that further demands must be met. Newcastle has been rate-capped. I was told that in Newcastle three nursery units attached to schools are already open or due to open this year, but there is no money to furnish or staff them. Will the Government take responsibility for that? Petitions have been prepared on those matters and the demand is obvious.
Workplace nurseries also have a role to play in the overall provision. Employers increasingly recognise the importance of their contribution. However, particularly for mid-range income earners, tax is a major disincentive. We welcome the prolonged campaign by the Sunday Mirror to abolish the workplace nursery tax. We remind the Government that the Sunday Mirror has received many representations from parents about the importance and centrality of workplace nursery provision.
Labour-controlled authorities have tried to fulfil the aims and objectives of the 1972 White Paper, and they have been punished for that. From the Dispatch Box the Prime Minister frequently lectures us and bombards us with statistics to try to prove through a smokescreen that


we have misunderstood her commitment to the Health Service or to social security. However, she has been strangely silent on her commitment in 1973 that within 10 years nursery education should be available without charge to three or four-year-olds whose parents wanted them to have it.
We have seen no effort from the Government to meet the obligations inherent in the Education Act 1981 to meet the requirements of children with special needs. How can a child with special needs be integrated into mainstream nursery provision when there is no nursery?
The Government have shown that they are so obsessed with short-term economic profit that they are prepared to sacrifice the opportunity of millions of children for a good start in life. The Government's lack of care has cost our children dear. The nation's future is their future. The Government have failed children and parents. They have failed to fulfil their promise to the nation and they have failed the nation's future opportunities.
The House has an opportunity to remind the Government of their promises, commitments and responsibility and a chance to show that we are prepared to secure the best opportunity for children, their families and their future. I invite hon. Members to do that.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) on her first appearance at the Dispatch Box. While I do not agree with all that she said, I think it right to welcome her to her new position. I also add my warm welcome to the Select Committee's report. Like many other hon. Members, I have read it carefully. I certainly hope to make the Government's response to it most worth while.
Because the report was issued only last week, many of its recommendations have formed the basis for the debate, which has included some valuable contributions and important thoughts on the pre-school experience for children. However, it is important to establish the major issues that have emerged from the debate.
I thought that I would be disappointed when the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) almost gave the game away. While some Opposition Members are prepared to bob and curtsey to that most valuable organisation the Pre-School Playgroups Association, when it comes to the nub of the matter they would like total state provision of nursery education, which the Government are not so anxious to provide. We have always been convinced of the importance of diversity of provision to meet the varying and different requirements of parents.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough, rather ungraciously, called into question my right hon. Friend's figures on expenditure. I should point out—perhaps the figures will help—that in 1988–89 the expenditure was £495 million and in 1989–90 the figure is expected to be £536 million, an increase of 8 per cent., while there has been a 2 per cent. increase in the number of three and four-year-olds in the system. There were 1·206 million three and four-year-olds in 1988–89, and in 1989–90 there will be 1·230 million.
Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will see that there is some disparity in the figures and therefore, of necessity, we are planning some increase in provision.
The hon. Gentleman also called into question the number of people who are interested in becoming early-years teachers. It is important to point out that between last year and this year there will be an increase of 6·4 per cent. in the number of people interested in taking bachelor of education degrees in early child education.

Mr. Flannery: Is the hon. Lady counting the children who, due to empty spaces in primary schools, are entering reception classes and therefore receiving a different type of education from that which they would have received in nursery schools?

Mrs. Rumbold: Of course I am counting all the children because I am talking about provision for pre-five children.
I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) that it is a pity that Opposition Members should be so ungracious about the disparity of provision between concentrated urban areas and country areas where it is undoubtedly more difficult to make consistent provision. I was delighted to hear from him.

Mr. Win Griffiths: rose—

Mrs. Rumbold: No, I shall not give way. I must get on.
I was delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend believes that the quality of provision has become better targeted. That gave me considerable pleasure. I have always felt that there needed to be an improvement in what was happening within pre-school experience for children. My right hon. Friend's views on the quality of education content in both the state provision and playgroups will be taken most seriously in the Government's review. He was anxious about the experiences of children aged four years in reception classes not being taken into account as much as they should by some teachers, simply because they lack experience of the relevant teaching and curriculum development that four-year-olds should have. That is another matter that the Government understand and will take into consideration. I was grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that point.
I understand why the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is unable to be in his place. He talked about the importance of first assessments for children in compulsory schools taking place at the age of seven. He hoped that the early experiences of children and their social and cultural backgrounds will be taken into account when assessments are made. Perhaps a further study of the report of the task group on assessment and testing will reassure the hon. Gentleman. It is something that we are concerned to ensure. Children who are tested or assessed at the age of seven will not necessarily be disadvantaged if they have less pre-school experience than others.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) was absolutely right to reiterate that local authorities, and particularly local education authorities, have the right, given and upheld by all hon. Members, to make choices about the perceived priorities for education expenditure. I am grateful to him for reiterating the amounts of money that are always in the expenditure levels. I strongly support his view that care for the under-fives is a most demanding job. Therefore, training must be carefully looked at.
I greatly admire the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) for taking her stand on the principle of nursery education. I am sad to say that I can give her no hope that her example is likely to be followed in the near future. Her analysis of the importance of early education experience bears some study. It seemed to encapsulate the views of several people who have studied the development of children and the importance of early development and experiences. She pointed out that the success of compulsory schooling at the age of five depends on some sort of pre-school experience.
I take the opportunity of reminding Opposition Members that, when they make comparisons between this country and others, they frequently manage to forget that, with the possible exception of the Netherlands, Britain is the only country with compulsory education beginning at the age of five. In most other countries, full-time compulsory education paid for by the state starts at the age of six. In some countries it begins at the age of seven. Therefore, we can rightly claim that by the age of five, 100 per cent. of our children are in full-time education provided by the state.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) said that it is wrong to opt for compulsion. I agree that any form of compulsion would be wrong. One of the things that worry me about blanket state nursery provision or nursery schools being attached to schools as of right for all children is that we shall immediately have the possibility of mothers having to queue to get their children into nursery schools, and later having to send them straight on to the primary school. Parents do not always want their children to go to the nursery class that is attached to a specific primary school. They want to choose the pre-school experience that they consider to be best for their children. I defend that to the end as I believe that it is of critical importance. [Interruption.] The Opposition yell at me and try to cover up the fact that, really they are asking the Government to provide blanket state education. That was the message that came loud and clear through every speech made by Opposition Members.
The hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) made it plain that that was his view. I am sad that he is not in the House at present. [Interruption.] I apologise to him; I had not seen him. I shall consider his views and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) about special educational needs. I must point out to them that the Education Act 1981 embodies our policy on the education of children under five with special educational needs. Clearly, it is important that if children have special needs, they should be identified as early as possible. That is why parents have the right to ask local education authorities to assess from the age of two whether a child has special educational needs.
I want to make one or two general observations. We have scarcely heard a word about mothers, who generally want their babies to develop into normal young children, physically, emotionally and intellectually. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about fathers?"] Fathers want that as well. Mothers who want to work—we have talked about the difficulties of such mothers—also want to reassure themselves about the quality of the care they provide. Perhaps we should realise that there are some important points for mothers and fathers to understand fully. The best education for young children in their pre-school years —emotionally and developmentally—undoubtedly comes

from their parents. However, the stage is always reached in a young child's development when some structured experience with the peer group helps to extend its intellectual and physical growth. That is not always understood by young parents, or by those who come from different cultures or from deprived areas. From an educational point of view, that experience has to be limited and part time simply because young children cannot cope with lengthy experiences in education. It is equally important, as hon. Members from both sides of the House have said, to realise that parental involvement may not always be possible, but is highly desirable and should not be discouraged.
Much has been said about financial help to mothers to offset the costs of such care. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West talked about offsetting the costs of child care. We can argue about how that money should be provided and who should provide it—the state or the employer—but the point is that employers could look to the needs of children to have the opportunity to be with their parents—either their mothers or fathers—and could develop more flexible hours of work and more flexible work places for mothers.
Our amendment rests on the Government's record. It is a record of which we can be proud, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. We have pledged to improve the quality of our provisions while maintaining diversity. I have no hesitation in commending the amendment to the House.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 281.

Division No. 39]
[9.59 pm

AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cartwright, John


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Alton, David
Clay, Bob


Anderson, Donald
Clelland, David


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Armstrong, Hilary
Cohen, Harry


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Coleman, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corbett, Robin


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Cousins, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Crowther, Stan


Battle, John
Cryer, Bob


Beckett, Margaret
Cummings, John


Beith, A. J.
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bell, Stuart
Cunningham, Dr John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dalyell, Tarn


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n amp; R'dish)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'i)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dewar, Donald


Blair, Tony
Dixon, Don


Blunkett, David
Dobson, Frank


Boateng, Paul
Doran, Frank


Bradley, Keith
Douglas, Dick


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Brown, Gordon (D'mllne E)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Eadie, Alexander


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Eastham, Ken


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Buchan, Norman
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Buckley, George J.
Fatchett, Derek


Caborn, Richard
Faulds, Andrew


Callaghan, Jim
Fearn, Ronald


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Flannery, Martin


Canavan, Dennis
Flynn, Paul






Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maxton, John


Foster, Derek
Meacher, Michael


Foulkes, George
Meale, Alan


Fraser, John
Michael, Alun


Fyfe, Maria
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Galbraith, Sam
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l amp; Bute)


Galloway, George
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Morgan, Rhodri


George, Bruce
Morley, Elliott


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gordon, Mildred
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gould, Bryan
Mullin, Chris


Graham, Thomas
Nellist, Dave


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
O'Brien, William


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
O'Neill, Martin


Grocott, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hardy, Peter
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Harman, Ms Harriet
Patchett, Terry


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Pendry, Tom


Heffer, Eric S.
Pike, Peter L.


Henderson, Doug
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hinchliffe, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Hogg, N. (C'nauld amp; Kilsyth)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Holland, Stuart
Radice, Giles


Home Robertson, John
Randall, Stuart


Hood, Jimmy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Richardson, Jo


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Howells, Geraint
Robertson, George


Hoyle, Doug
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rooker, Jeff


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rowlands, Ted


Illsley, Eric
Ruddock, Joan


Ingram, Adam
Salmond, Alex


Janner, Greville
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Barry (Alyn amp; Deeside)
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, leuan (Ynys M6n)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Short, Clare


Kennedy, Charles
Sillars, Jim


Kilfedder, James
Skinner, Dennis


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Smith, C. (Isl'ton amp; F'bury)


Kirkwood, Archy
Snape, Peter


Lambie, David
Soley, Clive


Lamond, James
Spearing, Nigel


Leadbitter, Ted
Steel, Rt Hon David


Leighton, Ron
Steinberg, Gerry


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Stott, Roger


Lewis, Terry
Strang, Gavin


Litherland, Robert
Straw, Jack


Livingstone, Ken
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Loyden, Eddie
Turner, Dennis


McAllion, John
Vaz, Keith


McAvoy, Thomas
Wall, Pat


McCartney, Ian
Wallace, James


McCrea, Rev William
Walley, Joan


Macdonald, Calum A.
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


McFall, John
Wareing, Robert N.


McGrady, Eddie
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McKelvey, William
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McLeish, Henry
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Maclennan, Robert
Wilson, Brian


McTaggart, Bob
Winnick, David


McWilliarn, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Madden, Max
Worthington, Tony


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wray, Jimmy


Marek, Dr John



Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Martlew, Eric
Mr. Frank Cook.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Gill, Christopher


Alexander, Richard
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Glyn, Dr Alan


Allason, Rupert
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Amess, David
Gorst, John


Amos, Alan
Gow, Ian


Arbuthnot, James
Gower, Sir Raymond


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Ashby, David
Gregory, Conal


Aspinwall, Jack
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Atkinson, David
Grist, Ian


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Ground, Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Grylls, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Batiste, Spencer
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bendall, Vivian
Hanley, Jeremy


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hannam, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Harris, David


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Body, Sir Richard
Hayes, Jerry


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Boswell, Tim
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bottomley, Peter
Hill, James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Holt, Richard


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Howard, Michael


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)


Brazier, Julian
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Brown, Michael (Brigg amp; Cl't's)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Burt, Alistair
Hunter, Andrew


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Irvine, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Irving, Charles


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Jack, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jackson, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Jessel, Toby


Churchill, Mr
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Key, Robert


Conway, Derek
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cope, Rt Hon John
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Critchley, Julian
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Curry, David
Knowles, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lang, Ian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Latham, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Ivan


Durant, Tony
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Eggar, Tim
Lee, John (Pendle)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Evennett, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fallon, Michael
Lilley, Peter


Favell, Tony
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lord, Michael


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forth, Eric
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maclean, David


Franks, Cecil
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Fry, Peter
Madel, David


Gale, Roger
Malins, Humfrey


Gardiner, George
Mans, Keith


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maples, John






Marland, Paul
Raffan, Keith


Marlow, Tony
Redwood, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Renton, Tim


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rhodes James, Robert


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Riddick, Graham


Mates, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Mellor, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rost, Peter


Mills, lain
Rowe, Andrew


Miscampbell, Norman
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Ryder, Richard


Mitchell, Sir David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Moate, Roger
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Monro, Sir Hector
Sayeed, Jonathan


Moore, Rt Hon John
Scott, Nicholas


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Moss, Malcolm
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Shelton, Sir William


Mudd, David
(Streatham)


Neale, Gerrard
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Nelson, Anthony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Neubert, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Shersby, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Sims, Roger


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Norris, Steve
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Speller, Tony


Oppenheim, Phillip
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Page, Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Paice, James
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Patnick, Irvine
Steen, Anthony


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Stern, Michael


Pawsey, James
Stevens, Lewis


Porter, David (Waveney)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Portillo, Michael
Stokes, Sir John


Powell, William (Corby)
Sumberg, David


Price, Sir David
Summerson, Hugo





Tapsell, Sir Peter
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Ward, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Warren, Kenneth


Temple-Morris, Peter
Watts, John


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wells, Bowen


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Whitney, Ray


Thome, Neil
Widdecombe, Ann


Thornton, Malcolm
Wiggin, Jerry


Thurnham, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wilshire, David


Tracey, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Tredinnick, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Trippier, David
Wolfson, Mark


Trotter, Neville
Wood, Timothy


Twinn, Dr Ian
Yeo, Tim


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Viggers, Peter



Waddington, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Noes:


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Mr. David Lightbown and


Waldegrave, Hon William
Mr Stephen Dorrell.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the First Report of the Select Committee for Education, Science and Arts, on Educational Provision for the Under Fives; recognises the Government's achievements in securing a significant expansion of nursery education since 1979; welcomes the important contribution of the voluntary sector, including the playgroup movement; and commends the Government's intention to secure the continuing growth of provision for the under fives in all its varied forms, and its commitment to improve quality.

Beef and Veal Regime

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8903/88 + COR 1 on reform of the Community beef and veal regime and of the Government's intention to negotiate an outcome which takes account of United Kingdom producers and consumers and of the need to keep Common Agricultural Policy expenditure within the budgetary guideline.
This motion concerns the European Commission's proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy regime and for the support of the internal market in beef. These proposals build on the temporary but important reforms agreed by the Agriculture Council in December 1986. These temporary arrangements were due to expire at the end of 1988. But the regime has been extended until 5 March 1989, pending decisions on the regime which should replace it. The current proposals are intended to provide a more permanent basis for the beef regime and management of the beef market.
As always with the common agricultural policy, these are complex issues, and I shall endeavour to explain this one as briefly as possible.
The internal support measures for beef can be categorised under two heads. On the one hand, there are intervention measures, affecting prices of beef on the market, and on the other there are direct payments to producers. The Commission's proposals affect both these types of measures and must be considered against the background of the current regime.
It may be helpful if I remind the House that intervention is currently available on the carcases of male animals which reach certain standards as regards conformation and fat-cover. In order for intervention to be open in respect of any quality or group of qualities, two conditions must simultaneously be met. First, the average price for that quality on the Community market must be less than 91 per cent. of the intervention price. Second, the average price for that quality on the market of the member state concerned must be below 87 per cent. of the intervention price. The buying-in price for beef bought into intervention under these conditions approximates to the average price on the markets open to intervention. One of the key points is that, for so long as these conditions are met, there is currently no limit on the volume of beef which may be offered to intervention agencies. For most of the 22 months during which the current regime has operated, intervention has been open on most of the eligible categories and qualities in the major beef-producing member states.
What the Commission now proposes is that there should be an annual ceiling on the quantities which may be offered into intervention and a tendering system to determine buying-in prices. It proposes that the ceiling should be set at 200,000 tonnes. The trigger points for intervention would each be reduced by three percentage points to 88 per cent. and 84 per cent. If the triggering conditions are met, the Commission, in consultation with the beef management committee, would have discretion—the key word—to open tenders for intervention in the member states concerned. The Commission would not be obliged to open intervention. Moreover, tenders once opened could be closed even if the triggering conditions

were still met. In any event, they would be closed automatically if the conditions were no longer met, or if the ceiling on purchases was reached.
As a further refinement to the system, the Commission proposes that it should no longer be obliged to fix the same buying-in price for any one quality of beef in all those member states in which intervention in that quality is open. The aim of this measure is to try to ensure that buying-in prices are more closely geared to actual market prices in the country concerned, and that intervention should not become a market in its own right, as it has tended to be under the current system.
The Commission also states—this is in response to pressure from some member states—that in very weak market conditions, exceptional support measures may be necessary. The proposal therefore provides that, even if the ceiling is reached in any one year, tenders may be reopened. In this event, however, the trigger points for intervention would each be reduced by a further four percentage points to 84 per cent. and 80 per cent. respectively.
I recognise that these are complex technical matters, but it is important to set them on record. I now come to the important point relating to intervention. Taken as a whole, these proposals constitute radical reform of the intervention system, and in the direction in which I firmly believe it is right to go, namely reducing the role of intervention and changing it from what had become an alternative market outlet to a limited safety net.
There can be no doubt that reform is needed. The measures adopted, following the agreement reached in December 1986, involved a reduction in effective intervention prices of about 15 per cent. It was hoped then, and I see why, that this would make intervention less attractive and thus, in time, lead to a substantial reduction in stocks. However, in 1987, as in 1986, purchases into intervention exceeded 500,000 tonnes. For much of 1988, purchases ran at 10,000 tonnes a week, despite adjustments to the system agreed as part of the 1988 price-fixing which resulted in a further fall in buying-in prices.
The new temporary system has had some impact, but not enough. For many operators, intervention has simply proved too easy. Why bother about marketing when there is a ready client in the form of intervention able to take anything one cares to offer? The industry throughout the Community needs to recognise that the customer to whom it has to direct its product—and to whom it has to be acceptable—is the consumer, not the intervention store.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend explain why it is that the other Community countries have never cottoned on to our excellent system, which is fair to the housewife and the farmer?

Mr. MacGregor: If my hon. Friend is referring to the variable premium scheme, I am coming to that. There are two aspects; the first and important one is the intervention system, and it is to that that I am addressing myself first.
The point that I was making, before my hon. Friend intervened, about the importance of recognising that the consumer is the customer, not the intervention store, is a point that I have constantly emphasised ever since I was appointed Minister.
The Government have therefore strongly welcomed the Commission's proposals on intervention. The operation of


a tendering system in the beef sector will not be without difficulty. Inevitably, those wishing to sell into intervention will face less certainty than they do at present, but a tendering system is central to the reform we need.
In discussions in the Agriculture Council, attention has been focused on the safety net provisions which would operate in exceptional market conditions. The original Commission proposals are vague on how these might operate. During the protracted negotiations in December, the Commission suggested that, should the average price on the Community market fall to 78 per cent. of the intervention price, tenders would automatically be opened for that quality and all bids below 80 per cent. of the intervention price would be accepted. Purchases under such tenders would not count towards the ceiling.
This would represent a cut of 13 percentage points in the Community trigger, from 91 per cent. at present to 78 per cent. These ideas did not satisfy all member states, some feeling that a firmer safety net was needed. In negotiations next week, I shall be anxious to ensure that, whatever safety net is finally agreed, it does not run the risk of permitting continuing intervention when market conditions do not justify it.
I turn now to the other aspects of the Commission's proposals, those affecting premiums paid to producers. As in 1986, the Commission has proposed that cuts in intervention support should be offset by increased payments to producers. As the House knows, under current arrangements, there are four premium schemes in existence: the United Kingdom's beef variable premium scheme, the calf premium scheme which is operated in Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic and Italy, the special premium which is paid in all member states except the United Kingdom and Italy and at a reduced rate in the Irish Republic, and the suckler cow premium. The Commission's proposals envisage that the beef variable premium and the calf premium would lapse and be replaced by the special premium which would become a permanent part of the beef regime in all member states.
The special premium is a headage payment currently of 25 ecu, which is equal to £17·76. For reasons of brevity, I shall refer to ecu. That is the amount payable per head on male cattle up to a limit of 50 cattle per holding in any one year. The Commission proposes that the premium should be increased to 40 ecu and that the headage limit should be increased to 75 ecu. The suckler cow premium is partly funded by the agricultural guarantee section of the Community budget, and partly by national funds. The Commission proposes that the Community-funded element should be increased from 25 ecu to 40 ecu and that member states should be entitled to pay a further 25 ecu from national funds.
For us, this has certainly been one of the most difficult areas in discussions in the Agriculture Council. The United Kingdom's variable premium on beef has never had any friends outside the United Kingdom and we have always had to fight extremely hard to maintain it. But from the producers' point of view, it is important to bear in mind the fact that the variable premium is imposed as a clawback charge on exports and is paid out on imports from the Irish Republic. Both these factors result in extra supplies on the market, which push the market price below the level that it would otherwise reach. In these ways, therefore, the variable premium reduces the return that the producer receives from the market.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Will my right hon. Friend explain why the Commission's proposals exclude heifers? Is it not the case that bull beef production is much more widespread in other EEC countries and that the proposals are therefore a disadvantage to United Kingdom beef producers because they exclude heifers?

Mr. MacGregor: I am coming to that point. Perhaps my hon. Friend could wait until I deal with it in a logical sequence.
It follows that it would be quite wrong simply to compare the size and coverage of the variable premium with the special premium now on offer, and conclude that producers will lose by the difference between the two. This would be to ignore the effects of the variable premium on market returns. Conversely, these effects have, of course, been to the benefit of consumers. From its inception, the variable premium was regarded as a way of keeping consumer prices down by discouraging intervention buying, while still providing adequate support to producers. But the weakening of the intervention system agreed in 1986 and the further moves in this direction currently under consideration mean that much more account is being taken of consumers' interests in keeping prices at reasonable levels.
The Commission is adamantly opposed to including the variable premium scheme as part of the current arrangements, and no one else in the Community is arguing for that. The problem that we have had in the negotiations is that the alternative arrangements are simply not satisfactory: the proposed headage limit for the special premium is a major problem. I can see no justifiable reason why the Community should seek to impose this brake on the creation of more efficient agriculture structures. Perversely, the limit would discriminate in favour of the mixed farmer, who can run other enterprises alongside his beef unit, and against the specialist producer who, for reasons of climate and terrain, may have little alternative but to produce beef, and must therefore seek to maximise his return from doing so. Moreover, the headage limit causes greater problems in the United Kingdom than in some other member states because of our generally larger farming units, although it has emerged in negotiations that Spain, Denmark and the Netherlands—expecially Spain—are rather more affected.
Although I received a measure of support for the headage limit's abolition and for the scheme's simplification in other respects, most member states accept the scheme as proposed. So far, the Commission takes the view that removing the limit will be contrary to its policy of focusing support away from the largest enterprises, and more costly than its own proposal—particularly because of the large extra numbers that will be brought into account in Spain. That has been one of the most difficult elements in the package we are currently discussing—which includes more than the beef regime's future. It is the main reason why I opposed the package last December.
We and the Commission are firm in our determination that the 1989 budget provision and the budgetary guideline will be respected. That has been a significant constraint on the negotiations. In December, the Commission said it might allow member states that wished to do so to pay the special premium with no headage limit, provided that the payments so made are no greater in total


than had the member states concerned paid them on-farm with a 75-head limit—the main option it is putting forward.
In calculating the appropriate rate of premium for such a slaughter scheme, the Commission took in all the member states that expressed an interest in operating in that way, rather than choose the other option, and lumped them together. The resulting rate of premium is only 25 ecu, which I was not prepared to agree. So far, the Commission has been unable to envisage a scheme in which differing rates applied in different member states. That negotiating problem remains, and was the main reason I could not accept the December package.
I have said nothing about heifers. I appreciate that the loss of variable premium will adversely affect those specialising in heifer beef production. However, no other member state has received Community support for heifer beef production through intervention or premia. We explored in the negotiations whether the special premium can be extended to heifers. That is a point we pushed. I always believe in being open with the House about negotiating problems, and I have to say that, in this respect, we shall have real difficulties in achieving what we first sought—one of them being cost, but there are others. The special premium, for example, is designed as an on-farm scheme with payments being made on live animals. How will those responsible for paying it know that a heifer will not be used as a replacement for a dairy cow?
The present Commission proposals will provide a benefit for producers, retaining heifers for suckler beef production as a result of the provision for a higher proposed rate for suckler cow premium.
The negotiations on this package have been long and difficult, and when we resume next week we shall have a hard battle ahead. Our approach must continue to be that reform is essential if we are to have a stable regime that does not give rise to disproportionate cost. The beef regime has no stabiliser mechanism to ensure that the budget guidelines are respected, and the Commission's proposed intervention ceiling is vital in that respect.
We need an effective intervention system, but one that does not provide a disproportionately high safety net. We also want premium arrangements that put us on an equitable basis compared with other member states, and avoid the beef trade penalties that have beset that particular premium. Within those constraints, I shall seek a deal giving our beef industry a firm and fair basis for the future.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to both you and the House for interrupting the proceedings. I understand that one of the officials in the Box is blind, and that his guide dog is outside, behind the Chair, and is distressed because it has been parted from its owner. Will it be possible to allow the dog into the Box? Apparently, there is an order saying that it cannot—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman and the House know that what happens behind the Chair is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair. Doubtless there will be a response to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I sincerely hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the valid point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will be taken into account, particularly among those of us who are worried about animal welfare. We are also a little worried about the welfare of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He has been very candid with the House in talking about the difficulties that he is experiencing, and he may be aware that we intend to add to those difficulties during the course of next week—although not, of course, in relation to the negotiations to which he has referred. Broadly speaking, we hope that he will be successful in achieving the compromises that are required in the interests of the United Kingdom.
I am particularly grateful for this opportunity to debate the future of the beef industry, which is a matter of special significance in my own country of Scotland. Scotland produces no less than 40 per cent. of the United Kingdom's prime beef and contains 11,000 specialist beef breeding herds and 2,500 finishing herds, which produce 31 per cent. of our overall farm output—a cool £423 million in 1987. The industry is also important in Wales, Northern Ireland—to which the scheme relates rather differently; no doubt Northern Ireland Members will speak about it later—and much of the north and west of England. The wellbeing of the beef farming industry is of vital interest to the economy, and indeed the environment, and to vast expanses of the British countryside, and it is therefore important that we try to get these decisions right.
It is also important to recognise that beef is a popular food, and—provided that it is handled and stored hygienically and properly—a healthy, useful and thoroughly enjoyable part of our national diet. We recognise the possible dangers arising from excessive consumption of animal fat, but it is relevant to point out that Britain's beef consumption in 1987, at 22·3 kilos per head, was below that of France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, West Germany and even Greece. In turn, the average European Community consumption, at 23·5 kilos per head per year, is well below that of a number of other countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and less than half that of the United States.
The point that I am trying to make is that it would not do the great British public any harm at all if they had the opportunity to enjoy a little more prime beef as part of their weekly menu. I am sure that they would very much like to do so if the price were right, but I fear that the proposals being forced on the House by the European Commission could put up the retail price and make it more difficult to sell beef to consumers in Britain and elsewhere in the Community.
Other factors, of course, affect the consumer's attitude to beef. There are suspicions about contamination by hormones, and fears about bacterial contamination and bad hygiene standards. The Minister knows that he has connection. Our somewhat ill-considered ban on "safe" hormones has given rise to a thriving black market in potentially dangerous products in some parts of the Community, not to mention a trade war with the United States. Whatever the history of the ban, I think that it must now be maintained, effectively and fairly; and that must mean better enforcement in certain parts of the Community. I understand that not long ago, in Bavaria, no fewer than 150 veal calves were found to be


contaminated with diethylstilboestrol, or DES, which is supposed to be banned. Such incidents simply aid the United States' interest in the suggested trade war.
Meat hygiene is a matter more of national than of European concern, and the shortcomings of Britain's slaughterhouses and meat inspection procedures have come in for some adverse comment recently. Far too few of our slaughterhouses come up to European Community standards. It is left to hard-pressed local authority environmental health officers to control all aspects of the market, and I fear that last month's events in Truro will have done nothing to improve consumer confidence in the product. On the contrary, they may have confirmed some people's worst fears about what is concealed in curry sauce —no double entendre is intended. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food must sharpen up its procedures on food quality and food hygiene control.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: The hon. Gentleman rightly stresses the importance of consumer interest, but does he accept the proposition that the consumer does not benefit if the producer is impoverished? Will he pay due attention to that proposition and comment on his attitude to a change in the regime, bearing in mind the importance of the beef sector of the market to Scotland?

Mr. Home Robertson: Most certainly. I intend to deal with that. If consumers are to have confidence in that product, the Minister must take certain measures. There are welcome signs that after recent pressure the Ministry is beginning to take action to sharpen up the procedures for maintaining food hygiene standards in the United Kingdom. However, the Minister knows that he will be hearing more about that subject as time goes by.
If the Minister could get these aspects of his responsibility for the meat trade in order, and if there were to be either a reduction in the retail price of beef or, better still, a reduction in poverty levels in Britain—which would make it possible for more people to include some beef in their weekly shopping budget—there could be scope for expanding the market for beef. Supply and demand in the beef market are more or less in equilibrium. If we could increase the demand for and the consumption of beef, there would be an almost unique potential for growth. That would be a treat for the consumers. It would also help to "diversify and extensify" the agriculture industry —to borrow a bit of MAFF-speak, just this once.
Has the Minister considered how much better it would be if land taken out of the surplus production of milk or cereals could be transferred to the extensive grazing of beef cattle, instead of the messy, short-term expediency of set-aside? It would help to retain employment on farms and it would be better for the management and appearance of the countryside. We are talking about a price-sensitive commodity. If action could be taken to control the price of beef, there would be potential for expanding the market.
This is a European Community proposal to scrap the beef variable premium which was negotiated by Labour Ministers. The fixed premium was negotiated by Fred Peart, whom many hon. Members fondly remember. The variable premium was negotiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) when he was working with the late John Silkin.
These mechanisms have been, literally, a uniquely-beneficial element in the common agricultural policy, in

that they are market orientated. They are in the interest of both the producer and the consumer. That is a unique feature of the CAP. The beef variable premium in Britain has encouraged the production of quality beef to meet demand all the year round. It helped the industry through a period of glut when the dairy herd was cut and it has reduced the price of beef in butchers shops by a small but significant amount, which has helped to protect that aspect of the market.
Against that background, it is significant to note that Great Britain—which produces 11 per cent. of European Community beef—accounted for only 1·3 per cent of the intervention buying of beef during the last year. Out of 820,000 tonnes of production up to November 1988, just 5,000 tonnes of British production accounted for intervention buying. During the same period, 370,000 tonnes of beef went into the costly and wasteful intervention system in other parts of the European Community. That is the market in its own right, to which the Minister referred. He is right to be seeking ways to phase out that wasteful and useless scheme.
If there were need for any proof that the beef variable premium system works, those figures should be conclusive. That premium, and other factors in Great Britain, have helped to make the intervention system almost redundant in recent months. However, we understand that the Government are under pressure to scrap the well-proven variable premium mechanism and to replace it with, first, an enhanced suckler cow premium, secondly, with a new special rearing premium, to be paid only for male cattle up to a maximum of 75 per farm, and, thirdly, with the new system of restrictions on intervention buying that the Minister described. Presumably, in addition to that we shall still be left with the hill livestock compensatory allowance to support the less favoured areas, although even that allowance has been frozen this year.
We endorse the principle of the enhanced suckler cow premium, although there must be some question as to whether the level of payment that is being suggested will be enough to do the job required. We certainly support the targeting of support towards the hills and uplands, and we strongly support moves wherever possible to phase out and supersede the absurd and discredited system of intervention.
But the proposed special rearing premium as proposed by the Commission will be a lousy substitute for the beef variable premium. The proposed restrictions will discriminate outrageously against British interests, as some Conservative Members have pointed out in interventions. This change would reduce support for farmers, increase the price of beef in the shops and, by removing the system of quality grading at the time of slaughter, remove an important incentive to produce high quality stock. Also, incidentally, according to my information, it would destroy the jobs of about 200 Meat and Livestock Commission graders.
Meanwhile, the restrictions on numbers and different options for claiming the premium at different stages in the production cycle—by breeders, dealers or feeders—will give rise to bureaucratic problems and, I fear, some scope for fraud, something which we should always bear in mind in connection with European mechanisms.
I presume that to stop the duplication of payment of subsidy under the scheme, we shall have to return to the


literally bloody ritual of punching holes in calves ears, a process which many of those involved in the agriculture industry were happy to get rid of.
The proposed maximum levels of support, when compared with the existing framework, would be 40 per cent. lower for the specialist beef units with 150 cows or less. For the large number of British herds which are bigger than 250 cows, the cut in support could be even more severe. Those farms provide vital jobs in very remote areas of the United Kingdom.
Specialist beef farms would also suffer discrimination because of the exclusion of heifers from the special rearing premium. I presume that this sex discrimination has been suggested because of the prevelance of dual purpose husbandry on the mainland of Europe, where heifers from the same herd are used for dairy production and bull calves are used for beef. The scheme should be adjusted to take account of the interests of the specialist beef production in the United Kingdom.
The Minister said that there would be no way of ensuring that a calf on which the premium had been paid might not be used for breeding. If the payment were made at the time of slaughter, breeding could not take place after that. So there are ways of overcoming that problem and the Minister should address them. This point has been made by the National Farmers Union and by hon.
Members in all parts of the House. My hon. Friends the Members for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) and for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) were speaking to me earlier about concern expressed by their constituents on this issue.
Both the 75-calf cut-off point and the exclusion of heifers are intolerable from the British point of view, and given that this sector of the industry has suffered from falling returns in recent years, there must be a strong argument for maintaining something like the current net level of support to prevent more job losses and more business failures in the livestock producing areas of the United Kingdom.
Ideally, that should be done through something like the variable premium scheme, which would continue to provide support for producers with incentives for consumers. But the figures that have been proposed by the Commission would represent a net cut in support of about 40 per cent., which could do considerable damage to the fragile economy—and, indeed, the fragile ecology—of grassland areas, particularly in our hills and uplands.
I suspect that I am echoing some of the arguments that the Minister adduced at the December meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers. I strongly urge him and his colleagues to continue the fight on these vital British interests—on these vital factors for the British rural economy—and, above all, to demand the retention and development of the variable premium, which is good value both for the taxpayer and for the housewife in Britain.

Beef and Veal Regime

Mr. Christopher Gill: There is much to be said about the European Community beef regime, but little of it is complimentary. Over the past 15 years we have seen tremendous changes in the method of supporting our beef industry—from the original fat stock guarantee scheme which supported the producer at the expense of the taxpayer, to the benefit of the consumer, to a regime which today has failed to support the producer adequately, has been of doubtful benefit to the consumer and has cost the taxpayer dear.
The question about intervention is whether we can justify continuing, even at a reduced rate, a system that has failed in its stated purpose. That is not only my view. It is the view of the Commission as stated in the explanatory memorandum issued in connection with the debate. The memorandum states:
Experience during this period has shown that intervention, even at lower prices, is still a costly and inefficient instrument lacking the power to affect prices to any substantial extent.
The system palpably cannot be policed adequately. We have only to consider the European Court of Auditors report, volume 31, page 70, paragraph 4.34, to see evidence of that.
The present system is not intelligible and little wonder. The estimates of the number of people who actually understand the European beef regime vary from six to 20 people. Those estimates can include precious few beef producers, meat traders, civil servants or politicians. The prime reason for the failure of intervention is, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already said, because it ignores the customer and at the same time defies market forces.
Production has progressively and increasingly been targeted at the seasonal price scales and intervention stores and not at the consumer. Without doubt that has been to the long-term detriment of the industry and to the disadvantage of housewives, unless housewives happen to be in a third country. The purpose of producing food must be to feed mouths. It would be folly to do otherwise.
There are difficulties in controlling or policing intervention effectively. Increasingly the trade in beef today is in boneless boxed form and not carcase form. It is physically impossible to inspect all the boxes of beef in intervention stores. It is even impossible to inspect a reasonable percentage of them. When beef is in that form in a coldstore—frozen, boxed and boneless—it is practically impossible even for experts to identify it. That gives rise to some of the scandals and abuses that we can all read about in the report of the European Court of Auditors. We must accept that inspectors have a limited ability to recognise the kind of meat that they are invited to inspect.
There is also a presumption that all the inspectors in the intervention process are honest and doing what they should. The whole system is wide open to fraud and abuse but the abuses are not necessarily the fault of individuals. I submit that they are a fault of the system. Sad to say, the abusers are not necessarily working in the production, slaughtering or processing of the product; they can be third parties. Unfortunately, those third parties bring the

whole trade into disrepute. It is extraordinary that people who cannot tell wheat from barley trade in and make windfall profits from intervention stocks.
It is regrettable that, for a variety of reasons, the system is so unintelligible. It is difficult for a bona fide farmer producing beef to understand why the intervention stores take the best beef off our market and spend money storing it in cold store. It comes out of cold store not as the first-quality beef that went in. but as a second-rate article which is inevitably disposed of at knock-down prices. All that is an admission that the system fails in its primary purpose. The fact that it is not understood means that it is least helpful to those who most need help. The system was intended to help the smaller farmer and prop up the beef producer, but the benefits under intervention often do not go to those people.
Intervention is discredited. The proposed head age payments are causing immense dissension and disagreement for understandable reasons, many of which have been mentioned. Not least is the fact that 35 per cent. of our beef comes from heifers. My suggestion and recommendation is that we should make every effort to concentrate our support for the beef industry on the suckler cow.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) spoke about the current net level of support. If that could be targeted on the suckler cow rather than to intervention or to headage payments it would produce a desirable situation in the United Kingdom beef industry. Suckler cow premiums directly benefit primary producers. An improvement on the present system would be for the support to be directed to the primary producer. Any support to the primary producer must perforce benefit the rural economy. That is another advantage in targeting the suckler cow as the vehicle for our support mechanism. The suckler cow keeps active and working people and families in the countryside. It is an extensive form of farming, and that is significant in these times of surpluses.
The hon. Member for East Lothian pointed out that beef was a useful, healthy and thoroughly satisfactory food. Beef produced from the suckler herds is probably the most natural food obtainable in the market place today. The suckler cow is ecologically acceptable, and 72 per cent. of the United Kingdom suckler herd is in the less-favoured areas.
Help targeted on the suckler cow would positively assist the United Kingdom to capitalise on its human and natural resources. It would enable us to capitalise on the skilled stockmanship in this country and on the interest and inclination of our farmers to involve themselves in that sector of agriculture. It would enable us to take up some of the slack and absorb some of the spare capacity on our farms and in our countryside. Our climate and geography are ideally suited to the production of beef. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to encourage some research into the comparative advantage that Britain may have in producing beef economically, possibly more economically than it can be produced in other member states of the European Community. Some native breeds in this country are ideally suited to that type of meat production.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) would have been as heartened as I was to note that a pure-bred south Devon heifer won the award for champion carcase at the Smithfield show this year. That demonstrates that, against all comers—charolais,


limousin, or any other exotic or continental breed—we have the breeds in this country economically to produce a first—class product and to give meat consumers something that they will enjoy. Encouragement of the suckler cow herd will help to rebuild the United Kingdom beef industry, help us to develop an export market in the trade, and put the roast beef of old England on the European map.

11pm

Mr. Geraint Howells: On this occasion, I shall be complimentary to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He deserves the support of all hon. Members. The future of the beef industry is at stake, if consumers are to have good supplies of beef in the years to come. I compliment the Minister for holding on to the beef variable premium scheme for many years. It has been a great success in this country. I wish him well in future negotiations to safeguard the interests of British beef producers.
The beef variable premium scheme came into operation in this country in 1974, the year I was first elected. From that time, I have been able to observe its development as a valuable support system for the beef industry. It has provided a floor for the market. Although it has not necessarily improved the profitability of beef production, it has resulted in much-needed stability for that sector of the industry. It has encouraged orderly marketing and ensured a steady, high-quality supply of beef for consumers in this country.
As we all know, beef production is an important section of British farming, particularly in less-favoured areas of Britain, where it forms the economic basis of a large part of rural communities. Therefore, it is the Government's duty to ensure that adequate support is available, to the benefit of producers and consumers. The right course is for the Government to argue for the retention of the beef variable premium scheme to fulfil their stated aim of negotiating an outcome that takes account of United Kingdom producers and consumers. I shall strongly back the Minister if he pursues that line.
Like Conservative Members, I have always regarded the intervention buying of beef as wasteful and unnecessary. I have often criticised it, in the House and elsewhere. I do not object to its role being diminished through the new Community regulations. The proposed premium in place of the variable premium is not adequate for the needs of British farming. The present provisions are totally unsuitable and will work directly against the interests of the British producer. If the proposals are accepted without alteration, they will lead to a total loss of confidence in the industry, particularly in less-favoured areas.
First, the rate offered is considerably less than that paid under the variable premium scheme at its maximum. Secondly, it is limited to 75 head of cattle, which restricts payment even more. Thirdly, as the United Kingdom industry produces more than 35 per cent. of its clean beef from heifers, which is a higher percentage than in any other member state, the restriction of payment to male cattle only is especially unfair. That restriction must be removed if there is any possibility of accepting the proposals at all. I urge the Minister—as I am sure he will

—to try to amend the proposition, so that the figure of 75 can be increased. That would mean that every bullock that is reared on a particular farm or farms would qualify for the premium.
It is also important to ascertain whether the special premium is restricted to specialist producers who do not produce milk or dairy products. Such a restriction would operate unfairly against the many mixed farmers in the less favoured areas and should not be approved.
One provision that I can welcome is the increase in the European Community's contribution to the suckler cow premium. However, that will only be of benefit if the Government take advantage of the right to top up the premium to a reasonable and economic level.
I hope that, when the Minister goes to Europe next week, he will bear these points in mind and that the feeling expressed in the House tonight will stiffen his resolve to ensure that the beef producers of the United Kingdom do not lose as a result of the EEC proposals. I urge him to say once again to his friends in Europe—in the interests of both producers and consumers, in the short to medium term at least—that the variable premium scheme should continue unamended to provide a base to the market and a degree of stability until the period of transition in the dairy sector, which has direct implications for beef producers, is completed.
I want to ask the Minister one final question. What does the future hold for the Meat and Livestock Commission? Will it be dismantled in the next few years?

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on the way in which he introduced the subject this evening. He knows that the beef industry in my part of the world is very important. We have been brandishing names around tonight and I was disappointed not to hear the Herefordshire breed mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). If he cares to travel 25 miles from his constituency, I shall show him some fine specimens. Of course, there are Herefordshire cattle in his own constituency. Beef production is an important activity in the western part of my constituency.
I am anxious that, as an outcome of the discussions on which my right hon. Friend will again embark, the United Kingdom industry should feel that it has emerged sharing an equal burden of the misery. I am not certain that the Commission has fully realised the importance of that. The Commission does not yet understand the significant difference between farm structures in this country and those in other parts of the world. It is easy, knowing that the agriculture vote in the country is lower than it is elsewhere, to try to load the difficulties on to the United Kingdom industry to the benefit of other countries in the Community.

Mr. Hunter: I accept entirely what my hon. Friend has said. It is false to draw a ready distinction between the industry and the consumer because thriving producers are in the interest of the consumer. I invite my hon. Friend to continue his argument, but to draw attention to the cohesion of interest between producer and consumer.

Mr. Shepherd: I am much in agreement with my hon. Friend. We cannot have a healthy market for the


consumer unless goods are produced at the right price to the benefit of the producer. That is what we must seek to achieve at all times.
Our producers will judge the success of the negotiations on whether their industry has been discriminated against in the outcome. We have heard already of the various items of discrimination that are on the table. It is important that these are trimmed, or that the arguments for them are made to hold water by those who propound them. They certainly do not hold water from the standpoint of the United Kingdom industry. I am disappointed that the Commission, and the Community as a whole, has not seen fit to learn from the lessons of the variable premium scheme and its success in encouraging the consumption of beef. I accept that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) had a good point when he said that our consumption of beef is lower than that of other European countries. It seems crazy that we should be throwing out a scheme that maintains a lower level of price so as to increase the price to the consumer and reduce consumption at a time when we are trying to increase consumption or reduce its production. That is inimical.
There is a finely poised structure of agriculture in the hills. My right hon. Friend the Minister has said that there are many holdings in the uplands, in less favoured areas and on marginal land where the only option is to use the grass. That means sheep or suckler cows. Unlike the Bavarians, we do not have the alternative of making BMW motor cars. We have people whose sole occupation is rearing cattle or sheep. They do not have the facility, the opportunity or the finance to make changes. We must encourage the suckler cow herds. The dairy herd is down for reasons that have been mentioned already and therefore we must encourage the continued growth of the suckler herd in the hills. I shall measure the success of the negotiations on whether the uplands are favoured on balance so as to maintain the delicate structure of the countryside.
I wish my right hon. Friend the Minister well in the negotiations. I know that he will carry both sides of the House with him as he travels. I hope that the members of the Commission and those of other Governments who read the report of the proceedings of the House this evening will understand our strength of feeling.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: Like earlier contributors to the debate, I give my support to the Minister for his renewed endeavours, which he will demonstrate at next week's negotiations, to improve the terms of this package. I speak from experience, as a Northern Ireland Member, and with an understanding of how the package will affect farming in the North.
Northern Ireland farmers will be suffering double jeopardy with the abolition of the calf premium and the variable beef premium. The Northern Ireland farming industry is already suffering multiple deprivation—the milk quotas are biting deeply with tragic results for some small dairy farmers, some of whom have had this month to return milk cheques to the Milk Marketing Board because of slight over-production. The cereal producers are having to make a contribution to the financial

arrangements of the cereal regime regarding over-production, even though they are net importers of cereals to Northern Ireland.
Of course, like every other area, the poultry industry in Northern Ireland, even though it was and is entirely free from pollution and disease, has suffered dramatically. Now, beef, the last residual sector in agriculture, is suffering the possible double jeopardy of the abolition of the premium and the variable beef premium.
I ask the Minister whether it would be possible to negotiate an extension of the variable beef premium—which was beneficial to the beef producer in Northern Ireland—from 5 March to 31 March, which would be the end of the marketing season in Northern Ireland. That would be a small but useful contribution to that industry. How important that variable beef premium is to the Northern Ireland farmer can be seen by the fact that the beef industry accounts for more than one third of agricultural products. The loss in the first year alone to our relatively small farming population would be about £18 million.
The abolition of the calf premium will cause the Northern Ireland producers to suffer a loss of between £2 million and £3 million.
It could be argued that those premiums are being replaced by the special premium, but the farming community in Northern Ireland consider that that premium, at the rate proposed, will not compensate for the losses which will be incurred by the loss of the other two premiums. The Northern Ireland farmer would ask that, not only the headage should be extended beyond the proposed 75 heads, but that the premium should be increased from 40 ecu to at least 50 ecu.
Like other hon. Members, I would ask for the scheme to be extended to the maiden heifers, because it is interesting to note that in Northern Ireland 50 per cent. of beef production is from the maiden heifer, and would be an important addition to the proposals.
We feel that the point made by the Minister about intervention will adversely affect the income of farmers in Northern Ireland to the extent of about £2·2 million—if it operates equally in all regions. The figures could be much higher if the internal European Community Market reacts to heavier supplies by accepting a lower general marketing price.
Our farmers believe that the proposal by the European Commission to reduce the trigger levels of the market price from 91 per cent. to 88 per cent. of the intervention price would rule out the possibility of Northern Ireland participating in intervention within the 200,000 tonnes limit, about which we are most concerned. We are concerned, too, about the possibility of inviting tendering for intervention purchasing. The Northern Ireland industry feels that such tendering for beef intervention would probably lead to the large monopolistic interests moving in and obliterating our rather smaller meat plants and factories, because of their larger size and greater economies.
The Northern Ireland farmer is seeking an adequate replacement to the variable beef premium, an extension of the special premium to both male and female beasts and a further increase—which I have not mentioned yet—in the suckler cow premium, which is affecting another important sector of the Northern Ireland farming economy. Northern Ireland farmers have greater transport and cereal costs than farmers in the rest of Britain because


of the need to transport to and from Northern Ireland, so the margin of profit is much less than in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Our community is completely based on the agriculture of the small farmer and these movements and the depletions of income will have a considerable effect. Given our other problems, it is most important that we have a good basic farming industry and a good and stable livelihood for farmers in the rural community to sustain them and their families in their natural communities rather than that they should have to move to troubled areas.
I hope that the Minister will be encouraged by the support that he has on both sides of the House and that at the negotiating table next week a viable substitute scheme for Northern Ireland farmers and, indeed, all the farmers in the United Kingdom will be found for the replacement of the calf premium and the variable premium subsidies.

Mr. Tim Boswell: The beef variable premium scheme is the linear successor to the fatstock guarantee scheme which came in on decontrol in 1954. I think that I can fairly claim to have known that man and boy, and indeed to have produced beef in many of the latter years of that intervening period.
The advantages of the beef variable premium scheme have already been extensively canvassed and in support I would add only two comments. First, the 1984 Ministry submission to the EC points out that if we had had intervention at the time the cost to the Community would have been approximately twice that of the premium scheme.
Secondly, the good National Audit Office report on the implementation of the common agricultural policy in Britain shows that there is a much lower share of expenditure on beef and veal within the United Kingdom as a proportion of the Community's expenditure—the figure is under 10 per cent.—than one might reasonably have expected from the level of production in Britain.
The premium scheme has been good for Britain and the intervention scheme will be less desirable. But the issue is how long we can hold out with our distinctive policy. In saying that, I should put on record some of the costs of the premium scheme. The first, which has not been mentioned, is that it has cost the British taxpayer some £100 million a year in Exchequer funding. The second and much more serious cost is that it has produced a special arrangement for Britain which has had to be defended at every agricultural negotiation year by year and has cost us heavily in our negotiating position on other matters.
I concede that we are now preparing for the last rites. The scheme must go, but I am reluctant that it should. If it is to go, this is perhaps the right time, with strong market conditions in the beef market and the prospect, as dairy cow numbers reduce, of a continuing reduction in beef supplies. The issue will not be how much more beef we can produce, but how we can continue to produce what we are producing now and get it to the consumer for consumption.
What, then, do we require of my right hon. Friend the Minister in this negotiation? As has already been mentioned, our basic principle must be to ensure adequate supplies in Britain and to fight off undue discrimination.

That, I fear, is a battle in which we must engage year by year in the European negotiations because of our farm structure, although, unusually in the case of beef, or certainly suckler cows, we do not have the largest units in the Community.
In relation to the special premium for all beef production, which will be the main vehicle on the departure of the variable premium, one should first recall that that is much lower—approximately £28 compared with an average under the beef variable premium of over £50.
Secondly, as has already been said, the coverage would be less because there would be a top limit on herd size and a restriction on heifers. That is the nub of the Minister's negotiating requirement, and it is important to move towards a premium paid at slaughter, which would overcome many of these problems.
I echo the points already made about the dangers of not emphasising the suckler cow sector. I warn the Minister about a sentence in his explanatory memorandum, which has a nasty ring to it:
Adoption of the proposed increase in the element of the premium funded by the EAGGF would not necessarily give rise to an increase in premium payments since it could be implemented by reducing the current national contribution".
That sentence has the Treasury's fingerprints all over it.
It seems reasonable to start with a base line of the current premium, which I believe to be £33–40. We should add the additional 15 ecu—another £10.66—and then consider asking the Treasury to add back a little of the £100 million being surrendered to the shortfall from what is now permissible under the premium, which I calculate as another 3 ecu—or £2—ringing about a total suckler cow premium of £46. That would be a useful contribution. It would stabilise and partially increase suckler cow numbers, and concentrate production on specialists, on high quality y and on the areas of greatest sensitivity. Above all it would secure adequate supplies of beef for the British consumer, now and in the future. I wish the Minister well in his negotiations with the Treasurey in Brussels.

11 .27 pm

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Two principles should guide our deliberation in this debate. I stress again—this has been stressed often in previous similar debates—the importance of livestock production to Wales and Scotland. Here I speak for my colleagues in the Scottish Nationalist party. There is a tremendous reliance in our countries on the less-favoured area schemes. Farming unions in Wales emphasise that we suffer from a lack of real opportunities for diversification, relying instead on livestock production because of difficulties of terrain and climate, as the Minister pointed out.
This is important if we are to maintain the fabric of rural society, as well as the rural economy. That fabric depends on a good and viable agriculture economy. For that we need a bottom to the market, which the variable beef premium has provided.
I must also point out the difficulties that we have suffered from the imposition of milk quotas. They have operated in such a way that large parts of Wales now have no quotas, because of the opportunities to buy and sell them. Farmers are being driven into fewer and fewer options. Livestock production is so important that the success of the Minister's negotiations will be vital to the future of our rural communities.
It has not been sufficiently stressed that if the beef variable premium is ultimately scrapped, that will be the precursor of a similar decision on the sheep premium. If one accepts that the one must go, the case for retaining the other is greatly weakened.
Another important point is that the drive for harmonisation within the Community, which the Commission proposes in these documents, should not be at the expense of our producers. They should not be disadvantaged as a result of it. We welcome the Minister's general views on intervention and the value of the beef variable premium, which must be considered alongside the Commission's proposals for the special premium, with its restrictions. Those restrictions are in the maximum headage of 75, that only male cattle are referred to, although we have heard that 35 per cent. of our clean beef comes from heifers, and that the figure proposed, at 40 ecu, is substantially lower than the maximum paid under the beef variable premium. Those have important implications for the beef sector in Scotland. as they do in parts of England and Northern Ireland.
I support the Minister's argument for the retention of a premium that supports the rural communities, and farmers in those communities, and we would welcome increased support for the suckler cow premium because many of the farmers in my constituency tell me that this is a way in which we can build up the quality of our beef herd. Many hon. Members have stressed the importance of ensuring that. Farmers are concerned at the lack of good quality calves in recent years, and they want greater support for this move. There has been a substantial drop in standards, particularly since the 1970s.
Many of the comments that I could make would simply be repetition of points that have already been made by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. However, I have one last comment. Often, after I have come to debates about diversification and have looked for other ways in which farmers can produce, they tell me when I go back to my constituency that all that we have said is academic. Because of the physical constraints resulting from weather and terrain, they cannot shift methods overnight. Our message to the Minister is that he should redouble his efforts and, with the support of both sides of the House, ensure that he gets the best possible deal for our beef producers.

Mr. David Curry: In the uplands of Britain, the choice is between sheep, cattle and caravans, and of those, sheep and cattle are by far the more desirable. The problem in the beef regime is the system. Intervention is too available, too convenient and too profitable. The intervention store is frequently near to the abattoir, and it is too easy to put the forequarters into intervention and mark it as the hindquarters. The store is open every day of the year, and the potential for fraud arises because there is literally a raffle of product to go into the world market, and sometimes for that to go into the domestic market.
The answer to the fraud question, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), is not to multiply the number of inspectors but to remove the cause of the abuse of the system—the surplus and the way in which the intervention system operates. We must recognise that there is some good news around. For a start, stocks of

beef are down to 425,000 tonnes, compared with 750,000 a year ago. The special export subsidy to the Comecon countries was abolished last Friday. It did its job because it got rid of 200,000 tonnes, although it was perhaps the most unpopular export that we have ever had. However, that has taken the top off the surplus. Recently, some 100,000 tonnes tendered to Comecon was rejected because the subsidy was too low, which is a good straw in the wind. The actal sales into intervention, which were running at 4,000 tonnes a week in December, were down to 700 tonnes in the first week in January, which is the lowest level for seven years. In the second half of last year, output declined, and that decline will continue this year as we see the end of the slaughterings from the spillover in the dairy sector. Those measures taken in 1986 and subsequently have had a contributory effect, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) for the role that he played in those difficult negotiations. That is a role that my right hon. Friend the Minister will now have to play for the next few weeks.
Beef must not become too attractive an alternative to other products, the producers of which are also feeling the economic squeeze. We must ensure that the intervention system reverts to its original purpose, which is to be a genuine safety net and not an alternative market place. The suggestions before the House are, first, the limitation of intervention to 200,000 tonnes. There are two keys there, and the first is that a target for intervention is now available to the Commission so that it will be able to open intervention, where that is necessary, for certain cuts and for a certain period. It need not be open every day of the year.
The second key, which I do not think has been mentioned so far, is the change to a system of tendering. That would also give the Commission the discretion to reject offers into intervention. That is part of the selectivity and targeting that we need if we are to have a genuine safety net. There is no point in talking about getting rid of the system because that is not a practical option and there is little point in talking in esoteric terms. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) do not think that there is any point in singing a requiem to the variable premium. The Minister cannot defend it indefinitely. It is one of those outposts of our battlements and every time that we have to defend it we have to divert more and more troops to it. The political costs become higher and there must come a time when we draw our frontier upon more effective terrain. We must recognise that political reality.
The principle of the single premium must be acceptable in the light of the single market place, which is one of the Government's major policy thrusts. If we are genuinely concerned about eliminating fraud, we must recognise that a double system always leaves more scope for distortion than a uniform system. The problem is how to arrange it. It is unrealistic to argue that we should pay a premium on all animals without any limit. That would be prohibitively expensive and it is not a negotiable position. Spain has 1 million eligible animals, three quarters of which are in large feed lots and would cream this premium in the way that it used to cream the variable premium on sheepmeat.
The proposal before the House is for a single premium on the first 75 animals and we would find it difficult to accept that even though the bulk of our herds would be covered. The option may well be to seek a compromise


that looks towards a two-tier arrangement that would cover the majority of British producers. It would not be a perfect solution, but ultimately we could live with it. It is important that it should go to the producer and it must be fraud-proof. We cannot complain about fraud in the existing system and then ask for a system that reproduces the complexity of the one that we seek to change.
I echo what some of my hon. Friends have said about the suckler premium and there is no point in repeating what they have said. I am confident that the Minister will safeguard British interests but we must remember that our interests are twofold. We are interested in making sure that we have a viable agricultural community in the uplands. That community has a special interest in this production and is under pressure from various directions. As far as possible, people in that community must have their livelihoods safeguarded.
At the same time, the major British thrust must be the reform of the common agricultural policy, the constraint of expenditure on agriculture. That must be observed. We cannot proclaim the general principle of constraint on such expenditure while always proclaiming a particular derogation that allows us not to conform to the same kind of constraint. That is one of the political realities that we have to bear in mind, and it is part and parcel of our negotiating position. Successive Ministers have found this to be a difficult problem.
Lamb and beef are two central livestock sectors and so far have either not been subject to reform or have been resistant to it. Those sectors have significant international implications in terms of our relationship with the United States, a subject that we are not debating. I am confident that my right hon. Friend will do what his predecessors have done—go in and bat hard while remembering that our long-term interest is a prosperous agriculture community in a Britain that feels at ease with the agriculture policy because it is operating effectively, economically and honestly.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): It is usual to begin winding up an agriculture debate by saying that it has been good, because they generally are. It has been both a good and clear debate, but—unusually for this House—those who have contributed to it have understood exactly what they are talking about, and I hope to carry on in that vein.
I thank the hon. Members representing four different Opposition parties for their speeches. I refer to the hon. Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), for South Down (Mr. McGrady), for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones), and for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), who offered my right hon. Friend their support when he again enters negotiations in Brussels next week. I am glad that he has decided to take me along as prop. We shall manage not to sleep, but to do our best for United Kingdom beef producers.
The hon. Member for East Lothian was right to say that beef is an important product throughout the United Kingdom—from Angus in Scotland, through Hereford, and down to Wales, Devon and Cornwall. However, the hon. Gentleman allowed himself to be diverted into

hormones and hygiene. Hormones are not a matter for this debate. The hon. Gentleman said that we allow hard-pressed environmental health officers to maintain standards. They were responsible for putting matters right at Truro, not wrong. They often make their way to my
door, saying that they wish to continue doing the job they do after 1992, and that they can maintain their existing standards—which they say are the highest in Europe—and take them into Europe.
I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's cry yet again for grazed fallow set-aside and for a return to price fixing.However, mine is too short a winding-up speech to go down those alleys. Hon. Members have either spoken in favour of a continuation of the variable premium or referred to it with great nostalgia. I had not realised that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) was so old. The hon. Member for Ynys Mon is dangerously wrong to confuse sheep and beef. They are entirely different products when it comes to variable premium. He must bear that in mind.
No good word has been spoken for intervention. The hon. Members for East Lothian and for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and my hon. Friends the Members for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) all spoke against it. The point made was that it should be a market of last resort, and my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon commented that a tendering system will be better and fairer than an ever-open door.
There was little support for the headage system, and many hon. Members pointed out that 35 per cent. of beef production comes from heifers. My right hon. Friend and I will certainly bear that in mind in Brussels next week. Headage is perhaps the most important of all the questions that we shall be addressing there. It is pivotal.
The suckler cow premium was mentioned for various reasons. The hon. Member for Ynys Mon talked about the rural economy, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow; my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford talked about the hills; and the hon. Member for South Down
highlighted the importance of the premium. Everyone echoed my right hon. Friend's resolve to ensure that the package that emerges from Brussels after the long and hard negotiations there takes into account all parts of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8903/88 + COR I on reform of the Community beef and veal regime and of the Government's intention to negotiate an outcome which takes account of United Kingdom producers and consumers and of the need to keep Common Agricultural Policy expenditure within the budgetary guideline.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, c

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) ( Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, amp;c.).

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

That the Bristol Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th May, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

That the draft Bristol Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) (Amendment) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 12th December, be approved.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Question agreed to.

ENERGY

Ordered,
That Mr. Rhodri Morgan be discharged from the Energy Committee and Mr. David Clelland be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ray Powell.]

HOME AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That Mr. David Clelland be discharged-from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr. Joe Ashton be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ray Powell.]

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Ordered,
That Mr. Joe Ashton be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Jim Cousins be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ray Powell.]

EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND ARTS

Ordered,
That Hilary Armstrong be discharged from the Education, Science and Arts Committee and Mr. Dennis Turner be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ray Powell.]

Mr. Roger Cooper

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in the House the imprisonment of Roger Cooper in Iran. I shall put to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State the facts of Mr. Cooper's treatment in Iran, the conditions under which he has been detained for some three and a half years or more and the importance of securing his release now, as part of the resumption of diplomatic relations between Britain and Iran that are now under way.
I have known Roger Cooper and his family for over 35 years. He is an unusual, scholarly and detached kind of character, with a deep knowledge of Persian history, literature and culture, who, after 20 years of working in Iran, has become an expert on Iranian affairs. His somewhat academic turn of mind befits the nephew of Robert Graves the poet and a member of a highly intelligent, cultivated and independent family. He has worked in Iran in a number of capacities for more than 20 years, principally as a teacher, translator and latterly consultant on Iranian affairs. He is not a business man, or a wheeler dealer. He has a deep sympathy with Iran and Iranian people, and possesses the ability to make friends with people in all walks of life, whether they be shepherds in the Iranian mountains, his gaolers in Even prison in Tehran or members of the academic fraternity.
Roger Cooper was married to an Iranian for some years, is a excellent linguist and speaks fluent Farsi and other Iranian dialects. He is that rare individual whom the Iranian Government can be pardoned for falling to understand—an Englishman who is deeply attached to Iran but not an uncritical friend.
He was certainly criticial of the Shah's regime. In an article in the Sunday Times on 12 November 1978, he drew attention to the defects of the Shah's regime. He described the Moslem clergy as people who
more altruistically realised That the wave of western-style progress was not good for the country's soul".
In the same article, he described the Shah's style of government as high-handed. He pointed out that the Shah had allowed himself to be
puffed-up to almost divine status",
and had become so isolated from his people that he could no longer understand their aspirations or sense their dissatisfaction. He pointed out the
heavy cost in terms of human rights
of Iran's then internationally vaunted political stability and described the activities of SAVAK—the state security organisation which by then had grown into a reputedly ubiquitous secret police, with a network of paid voluntary informers that
make frank political conversation impossible".
As one who visited Iran in those days myself, I can vouch for the correctness of Roger Cooper's observations.
In the same article, he described the demand for Islamic Government and called for the return of Ayatollah Khomeini and the moving experience of the supporting demonstration in Tehran. He criticised the failure of the Shah's Government to co-ordinate relief for the victims of the earthquake that reduced the city of Tabas to rubble


and actually put these complaints personally direct to the Shah. That was typical of his honesty and independence, given that he was addressing an absolute monarch.
At the time of his arrest, Mr. Cooper was working as a consultant for McDermott International, the offshore oil services group, and had come to Tehran in July 1985 to help the company to secure a contract that had been put out to international tender and for which a variety of other Western companies were bidding. He entered Iran with a legally valid visa and was apparently arrested on a technicality. After the process of the tender forced him to stay on beyond the original expiry date of the visa, he had applied for a renewal and was told that he could stay in Iran while the application was being processed. Foreigners frequently overstayed the expiry date of their visas for this reason.
In wartime Tehran he was suspect because of his exceptional knowledge of the Farsi language and also because he had lived in Iran under the Shah and had done paid translation work for the Shah's Government. He was in fact one of the few westerners to criticise the Shah's regime in public for civil rights abuses, such as the torture and detention without trial of students. His respect for Iranian clergy and criticism of the Shah and the armed forces that propped up his regime are on record.
Roger Cooper was arrested on 7 December 1985 and is now in his fourth year of detention in Even prison, Tehran, where he has undergone countless interrogations. Although he has been called a spy by Iranian newspapers and some politicians, there is no evidence of this. No specific charges have been made, and while a number of apparently genuine spies have been caught and tried in Iran during the last few years, there has been no serious suggestion that Mr. Cooper could be a spy. No one who knows him regards such a suggestion with anything but derision.
Today is the 1,139th day of Roger Cooper's captivity. In a recent letter that he was allowed to write to his family —who of course are desperately anxious about his condition—he said:
The worst part is not having any idea what is in store for me or having any family or personal news for almost six months.
In another letter, he said:
One day merges imperceptibly into the next. There is no sign of when, or even if, I will be released, and I think the uncertainty is beginning to affect me.
Neither the British Government nor his family have ever been notified of the reasons for his arrest, or of any specific charges. He has not had access to a lawyer and was prevented from making written protest against procedural irregularities under the Iranian constitution. Although an appeal has been lodged to the supreme judicial council of Iran for a judicial review of his case, the court has apparently taken no steps to hear the appeal or to investigate the matter. In three years he has been allowed only six visits. He has many friends in Tehran who would have liked to visit him but who have been refused access.
Most letters to and from Roger Cooper do not reach their destination. At least 20 letters written to him by his only daughter have not been delivered. Although once allowed to telephone, he has not yet had the opportunity of speaking by telephone to his mother, who is aged 94 and who, like all his family, is increasingly concerned about his

position. He has received good medical attention in prison and sufficient food, but erratic opportunities for exercise. Recently he has been moved into a larger room and is in contact with other foreign prisoners, with a limited opportunity to take exercise.
In summary, the treatment of Roger Cooper accords with the provisions of neither the Iranian constitution, nor the Vienna convention nor the United Nations covenants. I urge my hon. Friend to press the Iranian Government on this. I detect some present improvement on these matters, which I welcome, but Mr. Cooper's detention is a serious bar to the improvement in relations between our two countries which we all wish to see.
The memorandum agreed between Britain and Iran in November last and signed by the two Governments provides a basis for the resumption of full diplomatic relations between the countries. I welcome that. I, like many who have visited Iran, value the long-standing relationship between the Iranian and British peoples.
I understand that the memorandum provides that relations between the countries shall be conducted on the basis of reciprocity. Both countries have an interest in the restoration of normal diplomatic relations. It is ironic in some ways that Roger Cooper—who, as I have said, must be one of the most knowledgeable Britons about Iran and its people—should be detained in this way.
In his letter from prison of June 1988 to the United Kingdom parliamentary mission to Iran, he spelled out in great detail measures necessary to improve the long-term relationship between the two countries. Despite his three and half years in prison, he is completely and passionately devoted to the cause of restoring relations between our two countries.
It is not enough for my hon. Friend in his negotiations with the Iranian Government to express the hope that improved relations will bring about the release of Roger Cooper. It must be made clear to the Iranian Government that there can be no normal relations between the countries while an innocent British subject is detained in this way. Seen from one angle, Mr. Cooper could be regarded as a hostage. I do not advocate, and I am not advocating tonight, a deal over any hostage—against which the Prime Minister has, rightly, set the face of her Government—but I suggest that a step-by-step resumption of diplomatic relations necessarily involves the release of an innocent prisoner. I urge my hon. Friend to put the position straight to the Iranian Government.
In the 10 steps involved in improving relations, which include the building up of the Iranian embassy in London, the issue of visas to Iranians to visit London and continued progress under the November memorandum, the release of Roger Cooper is an essential part of the process. It is not something which may or may not happen later. We cannot allow Mr. Cooper to be forgotten. Both countries want to develop trade between them for the benefit of the British and Iranian peoples, but I expect my hon. Friend to make it clear that this process will be frozen unless, as part of it, Roger Cooper is released.
This debate is not an attempt by —nor do I advocate such on the part of her Majesty's Government—to interfere with Iranian internal affairs. The 10th anniversary of the Iranian revolution is at hand, and this is an admirable moment for the kind of gesture of confidence in improving relations between the two countries which we have come to expect from the Iranian


Government. They have already released a Mr. Nicola. Now is the occasion for a further step in improving relations between our two countries.
Roger Cooper is passionately keen on an improvement in relations between Iran and Britain. It is more than ironic that his own individual liberty should have been curtailed so dramatically for the last three and a half years. It makes it even more important that his individual liberty should be restored at the earliest possible moment and that he should be released. I am sure that my hon. Friend will make every effort to that end. Both I and Roger Cooper's patient and suffering family look forward with expectation to the reply that the Minister will give tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I listened with interest, considerable emotion and close attention to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker). I recall hearing, at the end of 1985 —I believe it was in fact new year's eve 1986—that, as we expected, Roger Cooper had been arrested. That for me was the beginning of what I believe is an association with Roger which has lasted for almost the whole period that I have been the Minister at the Foreign Office with responsibility for Britons abroad.
I want to begin by saying how sorry I am that there is any need for us to have this debate tonight. Roger Cooper simply should not be in gaol in Iran more than three years after his arrest. However, I welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North in raising Roger's case and I want to take this opportunity to set out the efforts that we have made to release Roger and restate our determination to maintain pressure on the Iranian Government.
As my hon. Friend has said, Roger Cooper, a journalist with long experience and intimate knowledge of Iran, was arrested on 7 December 1985. It does indeed appear, as my hon. Friend said, that his original entry visa to Iran had expired by 7 December but he had been given to understand that he might stay for longer. Contrary to the Vienna convention on consular relations the British interests section of the Swedish embassy was not informed of Roger's arrest. But our diplomats in Tehran had noted his absence within the British community and made inquiries of the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 11 December 1985. The Ministry was unable to give us any information on Roger's whereabouts. As I have already said, on new year's eve 1985, we learnt from the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs that Roger Cooper's future now lay with the revolutionary courts. The Foreign Ministry stated that it could no longer intervene in what it described as this judicial process.
Once Roger's detention had been confirmed we made repeated representations for consular access to him in prison. I have from time to time had to emphasise from the Dispatch Box the very real limitations on the level of assistance which our consular representatives abroad can offer British citizens in trouble. However, access for consular authorities to prisoners abroad is a fundamental right under the terms of the Vienna convention on consular relations. Iran is a signatory to that convention, as are we, but the Iranian Foreign Ministry told us only that the question of access to Roger Cooper was no longer within its gift. That attitude and approach was not and is

not acceptable from a country which is a signatory to the Vienna convention. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress the fact that Roger's detention contravenes the Vienna convention on consular relations.
Since the start of Roger's detention we have pressed repeatedly for access to him and for the Iranian authorities to fulfil the terms of their international obligations. But it was not until August 1986 that our consul was granted a sight of Roger, and then only a sight through a glass screen. Since that viewing, if that is the way to describe it, and until August last year, British officials were only permitted to visit Roger on one occasion. His brother Paul has been allowed to visit him on a number of occasions. I would like to say at this point how marvellous Roger's family have been. We have been in close and regular contact with them. They have shown great resilience, fortitude and fine judgment throughout.
Since Roger's arrest his case has been discussed at every meeting between British and Iranian officials. Only last week in Paris, my hon. Friend the Minister of State raised the matter with the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Velayati.
A number of factors have hindered our efforts over past years. There are those in Iran who seem to believe that they have something to gain from holding Roger Cooper hostage. They have drawn spurious parallels between his case and those of Iranian prisoners in the United Kingdom. We have made it quite clear, as my hon. Friend would have expected, that there is no question of bargaining over Roger's release. In any case, we can accept no comparison between the detention of Roger Cooper in Iran without cause and the imprisonment, after due trial and conviction, of Iranian citizens in the United Kingdom.
It is also, of course, the case that Roger's detention has spanned a very difficult time in relations between the United Kingdom and Iran. These relations reached an all-time low in 1987 after a series of mutual expulsions and following the violent abduction of and unprovoked assault upon one of our senior diplomats in Tehran. That incident illustrated only too clearly the sad fact that we simply could not rely on Iran for the protection of our diplomats, despite their obligations under the Vienna convention. We thus felt forced to withdraw our diplomatic staff from Tehran.
Diplomatic relations were nonetheless maintained. We have been fortunate to have the excellent services of the Swedish embassy as our protecting power in Iran. We are grateful to the Swedish ambassador and his staff for all they did to help us during our absence from Tehran.
I am happy to say that the last few months have seen some important steps towards normalising our relations with Iran once again. We have always made it clear that if our bilateral and other difficulties could be overcome we should like to work towards better relations with Iran. Iran began in the summer of last year to show signs that she was ready to improve her own contacts with the international community; and to recognise the responsibilities that that involves.
We were heartened by Iran's acceptance of the United Nations resolution 598. The results of a series of exploratory official level contacts led us to conclude that it was right to seek a normalisation of relations. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and the Iranian Foreign Minister therefore agreed to the restoration of full diplomatic representations when they met on 30 September last year.
In taking that decision, one of the main considerations was our hope and belief that by restoring our representation in Tehran we would be able to speed up the release of Roger Cooper and of Nicolas Nicola. Those British citizens were at the forefront of our minds during the discussions with the Iranians. Their cases were the first issues which our charge raised when he resumed official contacts with the authorities in Tehran.
I am sure that the House will agree that the release of Nicolas Nicola on 26 December 1988 demonstrates that we were right to take that firm approach. We welcome Nicolas Nicola's release and only regret that it has taken so long. But I can assure my hon. Friend that we will not be satisfied with just this one step forward. The Iranians must take the further step of releasing Roger Cooper. We expect them also to do all in their power to help secure the release of British hostages in the Lebanon.
Our renewed presence in Tehran means, of course, that we can keep in closer touch. The charge and consul visited Roger Cooper on 28 December. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that they found him in generally good health and reasonable spirits. He is not in solitary confinement.
He has access to books, television and radio. He has been able to pursue his writing, although I cannot comment at this early stage on the article allegedly written by him which appeared in the Iranian press this week.
But, however reasonable the physical conditions under which he is detained and however often our representatives can see Roger, nothing can compensate for the fact that he continues to be held against his will and with no good cause and against Iran's constitutional and international obligations.
The Iranian authorities know that we see Roger Cooper's case as a test of their readiness to fulfil their obligations and a yardstick of how far they really wish to improve relations with the United Kingdom. We have made it very clear—I say this categorically in response to my hon. Friend—that there can be no substantial improvement in our relationship until Roger is released and until there is positive progress on the situation of the hostages in the Lebanon. We shall continue to insist on this, and we will make sure that the Iranian Government understand that the British public will not stand for less —nor will the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Twelve o'clock.